Greater London Authority: Election

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to postpone the election of the London mayor and assembly.

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The Government intend the Greater London Authority election to be held on 4th May, as planned. We therefore laid a slightly modified set of election rules on 23rd February, and plan today to re-lay the election expenses order.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is it not clear that these problems would not have arisen if the Government had not tried, in the words of my noble friend Lord McNally, to "fix and fiddle" the London election? Is it not the case that a freepost is what 5 million Londoners want, and should have?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has been mentioned, I offer my congratulations to him on being able to recite the second verse of "The Red Flag" on radio yesterday. I mention that because he, too, is familiar with fixing and fudging. If we were trying to fix and fudge the Greater London election, we have not made a very good job of it! Our concern throughout has been that all candidates should have a level playing field and that the process should not be subject to abuse. Therefore, as I explained at some length the other day, we are looking to ensure that candidates can get their message across without opening up the process to abuse and vast expenditure. We are in discussion with the other parties on the way in which that can be achieved. I believe that when we consider the Representation of the People Bill tomorrow, all parties will concur that we have found a way out of the difficulty.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, would not the Minister like to encourage independence--I say that without prejudice--and, therefore, does he agree that the lack of a free mailshot places enormous power in the hands of the party machine, both mine and his? Would not the noble Lord like to encourage independents to stand for election as mayor, both in London and in other cities?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that if I were quoted as saying that I wished to encourage independents, it might well be misconstrued at this point! We want anyone who has the requisite number of signatures and who is prepared to run a proper political campaign for the post of mayor to have access to all means of communication with the public. We believe that we shall find a way of doing that which does not lead to the kind of abuse about which I was worried.

Internet and Technology Stocks

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are concerned about the social and economic impact of the rise in value of Internet and technology stocks.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the values placed by the stock market on Internet and technology companies reflect investors' expectations of their future earnings.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am sure that everyone will be as impressed as I am by the succinctness, if not the wisdom, of that reply. Is the Minister aware of the enormous demoralisation that has been caused over recent years to key groups of employees such as teachers, those in the medical professions, social workers and the rest by the immense and growing disparity in remuneration between them and the City? Is he further aware, therefore, of the damage that will be done, and is being done, to the willingness of those groups and many others to remain within education, health and social work by the extraordinary casino-like activity in respect of technology stocks? Is there not a scintilla of socialist wisdom remaining from the present Government's long past on which they can draw to exert some control over what is, by any reckoning, something of a Stock Exchange farce?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that in the latter part of his supplementary question the noble Lord got round to the subject matter of his original Question, which enables me to attempt to answer it. Yes, of course there is huge resentment about the disparity in incomes between those who are seen as gamblers and those who devote their lives to public service. That is only natural. I do not know whether it was George Soros himself or someone commenting at the time of George Soros' major coup who described the stock market as alternating between greed and fear. For that reason especially, I do not think it right for the Government to attempt to second-guess the stock market.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity briefly to congratulate noble Lords opposite on their birthday. Is the Minister aware that the number of private investors buying shares on the Internet in Britain is reportedly doubling every three months? Are the Government satisfied that the message from Christine Farnish, director of consumer relations at the FSA, that
	"Consumers investing their money in smaller company shares need to know that the prices of those shares can be very volatile--both up and down. They need to think carefully about the risks involved before deciding what shares they buy and how many",
	is being adequately disseminated?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of all my noble, right honourable and honourable friends, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his congratulations. As regards the proceedings at the Memorial Hall, I was never quite sure whether the final decision was for the 27th or the 28th, which is possibly why we have been celebrating both days--and why not? The remarks from the FSA quoted by the noble Earl sounded very sensible to the Government at the time. I am sure it is in everyone's interest that investors, particularly private investors, should be aware of the difficulties and dangers referred to. We are grateful to the noble Earl for disseminating them more widely.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I hope that I misunderstood the Minister. He said that in his view Internet entrepreneurs were gamblers. I hope that that is not true. If the gamblers to whom he referred in an earlier supplementary answer are those who invest on the Internet, why should not doctors and the other people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred profit in exactly the same way as any other investor?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has doubly misunderstood me. I certainly did not say that Internet entrepreneurs were gamblers. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I said that those who worked in the public service resented the difference between them and those whom they regarded as gamblers. I did not myself use the word "gamblers". However, it is true that the Internet and information technology generally make a huge contribution to the success of this country, and it is important to encourage it in every way. Whether that leads to a particular valuation of any stock is a matter for those entrepreneurs and the market, not the Government.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the Government have already taken into account the grossly artificial values reflected in some very prominent stocks at the present time? In particular, can the Minister tell the House how the Government will deal with the very serious questions that will arise when the bubble inevitably bursts?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand what my noble friend recommends the Government should do. We cannot intervene directly, or even indirectly, in free markets; that is not our role. We do not seek to second guess the markets. I also made clear in response to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that we agree with those in the Financial Services Authority in particular who express caution about some of these stocks and advise great caution on the part of investors. It appears likely that a large number of those stocks which are valued very highly without ever having shown a profit will collapse, as my noble friend suggests. However, that is not a recipe for the Government to intervene.

Gay Relationships: Inheritance Tax Laws

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider granting the same property rights to gay and lesbian couples in respect of exemption from inheritance tax as those now enjoyed by married couples.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are committed to fairness in taxation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps all aspects of the tax system under review.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that at present the partner in a gay relationship with a higher earning capacity may be obliged to take out costly life insurance to cover inheritance tax that is payable by the surviving partner? Can my noble friend also tell the House whether gay couples are likely to be granted the same rights as married couples to designate next of kin and make decisions on the medical treatment of an incapacitated partner?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for being grateful for what I thought was a rather unhelpful Answer. My noble friend is right that the inheritance tax laws in this country discriminate in favour of married couples and against unmarried couples, whether of the same sex or heterosexual. Whether changes should be made to inheritance tax is a very much wider question than the issue of same sex couples. As to the second matter raised by my noble friend, I can be a little more encouraging. The Lord Chancellor's Department believes it should be possible to name next of kin, for example when somebody goes into hospital, on the basis of the person whom the patient wishes to designate rather than a blood relationship. When there is parliamentary time available that will be made possible. In other words, the situation should be comparable with the existing rules on enduring power of attorney where it is possible for an individual to designate somebody else regardless of relationship.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, is it not right that those who escape moral and legal obligations by not entering into marriage should not be entitled to the privileges which are rightly granted to married couples?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that those who do not marry escape moral obligations. Taxes are about raising money, not about being for or against particular lifestyles.

Earl Russell: My Lords, without asking the Minister to anticipate anything that may be decided by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does he agree with his right honourable and noble friends at the Department of Social Security that it is important to encourage private provision for retirement where that is financially appropriate? In the light of that, does the noble Lord agree that, if two law-abiding citizens who live in a single household wish to provide for each other's retirement, it is in the interests of the Treasury and the taxpayer to allow them to do so?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl has extended perfectly legitimately the scope of the Question from inheritance tax. My answer to him, as to my noble friend who asked about insurance, is that nothing in our laws discriminates against same sex couples as opposed to couples of different sexes.
	The Question relates specifically to inheritance tax. The lower threshold for the payment of inheritance tax is an estate of £231,000. A large proportion of couples will not be above that threshold.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an extremely difficult Question? The mind boggles at its implications. For example, why should couples living in a homosexual relationship have preference over two males or two females who live in a platonic relationship? Although they are not living in a homosexual relationship, in order to gain some relief from inheritance tax they might declare that they are homosexuals. If two brothers or a brother and a sister declared that they were living in a sexual relationship in order to gain benefit from the inheritance tax, they would be pleading guilty in advance of a court hearing to committing a criminal act.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I very much fear that my noble friend has a dirty mind.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I simply cannot accept that implication. I have been accused of having a dirty mind and I take that very seriously indeed. Noble Lords may laugh, but I do not have a dirty mind; in fact, I have a particularly clean mind. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will withdraw that remark, whether he made it in jest or otherwise.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if my noble friend is offended, of course I withdraw my remark. Some people think that a dirty mind is a perpetual feast.
	As regards his specific question, no preference is being suggested for homosexual couples. It was not suggested by my noble friend Lady Rendell. My noble friend asked for a wider extension of the rules for inheritance taxes than for married couples as at present. There is no question of preference there.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I believe that the point raised by the noble Baroness relates to the marital home or the home in which the two people live. Will the Minister accept that there are two answers. First, any person living with another--whether brother, sister, father, child or whoever--should have the right to nominate one person to continue living in the family home. That would avoid all discrimination. The second would be to adopt the Australian system and abolish inheritance tax.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question which has been tested in the courts. In the case of Fitzpatrick v. Stirling Housing Association Limited it was found that it should be possible to pass on a tenancy other than to a legal spouse. As a result, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has issued advice to local authorities and to the housing corporation on behalf of housing associations that they should permit a designated succession of tenancy pending legislation, whenever that can take place.

Baroness David: My Lords, if inheritance tax is to be looked at, could the situation of a son or daughter who has cared for an aged parent be considered? He or she sometimes does not have the benefit of the property being passed on without tax. It is an important point.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, by her question my noble friend illustrates the difficulty of considering inheritance tax. Inheritance tax is indeed being considered. All taxes are looked at all the time. However, the problem which my noble friend raises is one of the many considerations for the Chancellor and Ministers when they carry out a review.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does not the Minister's reply point up a problem for the Government? They want to modernise everything but never think through what it means. The Government say that they want to repeal Section 28. They say that they want to equalise the age of consent. They say that there should be no discrimination against people on the ground of sex. If that is what the Government believe, is not the logic of their position that they should now equalise the tax treatment of gay couples by allowing gay couples to marry?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again the noble Lord raises an important question. The issue of civil marriages for gay couples has been raised recently in France with the tax law. Many people in this country have a lot of sympathy with that. It goes a great deal wider than same sex civil marriages. One proceeds as best one can to make the changes that one can make consistent with the views of the people of this country.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the value each year of inheritance tax to the Exchequer? Approximately how much are we talking about?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should be able to tell the noble Lord. I am unable to do so. I shall write to him. It is a considerable amount of money, although it applies to a relatively small number of people.

Lord Alli: My Lords, will the Minister press his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter? First, I declare a personal interest.
	Many noble Lords will have known Lord Montague who died in this Chamber some months ago. Some of your Lordships will be aware that he had a partner, Takashi, of some 35 years' standing. However, perhaps few noble Lords realise that in addition to the grief and pain of losing Michael, Takashi is now being forced to sell the home in which they lived in order to pay inheritance tax. The testing of such cases of long-lasting relationships cries out for the law to be changed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend does well to remind us of the specific case of our dear friend Lord Montague. Because the benefit inheritance tax affords to the surviving spouses has been so wide, historically the definition has been particularly narrow. My noble friend may well be right in thinking that a change has to take place. However, it may have to take place with respect to the generosity of relief as well as to the extent of the availability. That is the balance which has to be taken into account.

Nuclear Disarmament

Lord Jenkins of Putney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are hoping to make substantial progress towards world nuclear disarmament at the coming United Nations NPT Review Conference in New York and how they propose to avoid the procedural discussions which are reported to have nullified the recent Geneva Conference.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the United Kingdom is working to ensure a successful outcome to the NPT review conference. We want to see discussion concentrate on substantive issues. However, the conference will also have to discuss outstanding procedural issues, such as establishing subsidiary bodies.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is it not the case that there is evidence from the Geneva conference that the discussion of procedural issues is used for the purpose of not arriving at any decision of substance and progress towards nuclear disarmament? Is it not necessary for my noble friends in the Government to take some exceptional steps to avoid that; for example, asking the Prime Minister personally to represent this country at the review conference so as to make it clear that we regard movement towards world nuclear disarmament as important? Are there not one or two procedural activities, such as putting one's own Motion on the table, which would avoid the general non-progress which took place in Geneva?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, my noble friend raised a variety of points in his supplementary question. I have said that we want progress at the conference, but there is no doubt that some procedural issues--and I am sure that my noble friend knows them in greater detail than I--must be resolved. However, it is true that the UK is concerned about the prospects for the review conference. We are looking for the conference to result in a balanced review which takes account of the positive steps which both we and other nuclear weapon states have taken over the past five years and which also sets a realistic agenda for the next five years.
	My noble friend raised the question of the Prime Minister going to the conference. The British delegation will be led by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr Peter Hain. That is the normal representation at such review conferences. The one exception was in 1995 when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, attended. That was a special conference and it has been the one exception. Therefore, the UK delegation will be led at the usual level.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the principal question is not whether we make progress at the review conference but whether we can run fast enough to stay in the same place? Is there not a profound mistrust among the non-nuclear powers that the nuclear powers are not taking their obligations under the treaty seriously? How do the Government propose to persuade them that we do not all share the philosophy of the American Senate?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell will forgive me if I do not take up his last rather provocative sentence. The UK has done more than most to carry out the NPT agenda. We shall make that clear, but the non-nuclear weapon states recognise that. Since the end of the cold war we have reduced the number of our operationally available warheads by 50 per cent. Most recently, we did so in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review when we announced a reduction of one third in the previously planned number of warheads. The UK has maintained its remaining forces at reduced readiness.
	I could go on, but I shall make one further point to demonstrate how far the United Kingdom has gone along that road. We have been completely transparent about our military stock of nuclear material, declaring that portion of it which is no longer needed for defence purposes and arranging to place that surplus material under EURATOM safeguards and to make it liable to inspection by the IAEA. We have an excellent record that the non-nuclear weapon states must recognise.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we recognise that the Government have done a good deal to reduce the British nuclear deterrent. However, beyond the procedural issues in the conference, does the Minister not accept that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, about the commitment of many within the United States Senate and Administration to pursuing theatre missile defence is the largest single issue hanging over the future of the nuclear non-proliferation review conference? Can she assure us that the Government are making firm representations to the United States about the dangers which the pursuit of theatre missile defence would mean for the non-proliferation regime?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the United Kingdom has made very clear to its allies in the United States what it feels about this issue. We have stated from this Dispatch Box that we shall continue to make our position very clear.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, to what extent is the Minister concerned that the failure to agree a work programme at last year's summit conference on disarmament risks undermining the credibility of the conference on disarmament as a whole? What action do the Government intend to take at the conference's 2000 session to prevent a repeat of the deadlock, particularly given the words of the outgoing president of the conference, Ambassador Leslie Luck of Australia, that the conference could not credibly remain idle for another year?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, that is exactly the problem which faces us all as we come up to the review conference in New York. The Government have been active in speaking to both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states. The chair of the forthcoming conference is Algeria and we shall be in close contact with all parties concerned. It is of vital importance to us and to everyone that the conference is a success. We are doing everything politically and diplomatically to try to ensure that it will be.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, an article in last month's Spectator suggested that we might share our deterrent with France; indeed, that we might create a Euro-bond. Will my noble friend the Minister explode that myth?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am not sure that that is the correct verb to use on this topic! However, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question because it gives me an opportunity to say that it is not true. We have warmly welcomed the growing co-operation on defence issues between the UK and France, but the UK nuclear forces remain operationally independent and under the Government's full control at all times. There are no plans to change that.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on Mozambique.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]

Report received.
	Clause 2 [Promotion of well-being]:

Lord Campbell of Alloway: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 18, at beginning insert ("subject to section (Discrimination in the provision of facilities or services) of this Act and to sections 2A and 2B of the Local Government Act 1986,").

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment to Clause 2. I am advised that, in order to render it intelligent within the evolving framework of amendments to the Bill, I have to speak to Amendment No. 81, which is a prohibition of positive discrimination as to the provision of services and facilities not generally available on public expenditure for the benefit of any group of persons. I must speak also to Amendment No. 82, which relates to the prohibition of explicit sexual material unless approved by the board of governors if made available in any maintained school.
	The first purpose of the amendment to Clause 2 is to avoid conflict on the Bill as it stands between Clause 2 and the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Young, which is now reflected in Clause 82, which restores Section 2(a) of the 1986 Act as amended to include bullying.
	The other purpose is to pave the way for Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 by removing putative conflict with Clause 2. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 are free standing. They have been accepted by the Table as complementary to Section 2A(1)(a) of the 1986 Act which stands unamended; that is, the prohibition of the promotion of homosexuality or the publication of material to that end. Albeit complementary, these amendments adopt a new, non-discriminatory approach which prohibits positive discrimination in favour of any group of persons of whatever sexual orientation or none. It introduces the new prohibition in any maintained school of explicit sexual material of the type which your Lordships have seen in the exhibition, if not approved by the board of governors on which parents now sit.
	Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 are not concerned directly with Section 2A(1)(b) in relation to the prohibition of teaching the acceptability of homosexual pretended family relationships. Section 2A(1)(b) stands unamended. However, with this evolving framework, Amendment No. 86 to Schedule 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reflects an amendment which was moved at Committee stage by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. That will be supported in due course as complementary to the amendments to which I am speaking. That will also be the case when, at the Committee stage of the Learning and Skills Bill, Amendment No. 235, moved by the right reverend Prelate to amend Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, is again moved at Report stage, which I gather will be on 14th March.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember, it was accepted at Committee stage of this Bill that, if an amendment such as Amendment No. 86 to the first schedule were carried into the Bill, there would need to be consequential amendments to Clause 2. However, that has not been carried in the form of the amendment to which I speak. When my noble friend Lady Young moved her amendment, which is now reflected in Clause 82, a vacuum had been created by the Bill as it then stood by Clause 62, by the abolition of Section 2A of the 1986 Act and Section 28 of the 1988 Act by Schedule 5. Clause 2 could afford no acceptable safeguard or control.
	Many noble Lords, including myself, had our reservations. However, we went into the Lobby to hold the fort--and we were right to do so--until some acceptable resolution was proposed in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and which did not engender resentment and confusion. However, but for the stalwart initiative of my noble friend, whom I am so glad to see in her place, and the support of this House, there would have been no time for reflection, no breathing space, no new approach and no hope of compromise. The vote of this Chamber was one of commonsense, signal service rendered by this House to Parliament and the people. However, now we have that breathing space; now we can enter the gateway of compromise.
	A new approach--perhaps I may express it as a kind of "concordat" between Church and state--was inspired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who speaks as chairman of the Church of England Board of Education on behalf of the churches. I suppose I must declare an interest as one of his wayward flock. It is plain from the Waterhouse report that in these depths of evil depravity no distinction whatever may be drawn between the heterosexual and the homosexual abuser. Based on any European Convention on Human Rights approach, under our domestic law homosexuals are entitled to respect for their private life, freedom of expression and equality of treatment, not only in the Army but generally.
	In 1998 the ECHR was not part of our domestic law. It is not understood today how any overtly discriminatory provision against homosexuals or the promotion of homosexuality with punitive sanctions against a local authority under Section 28(2)(a) or (b) could be enforced in our courts. Section 28, which, as I understand it, was not opposed in another place, was designed to deal with the wholly unacceptable activities of certain urban local authorities regarding the promotion of homosexuality. Albeit not so well drafted, none the less it served its purpose for approximately 12 years. It has now served that purpose and it should be replaced by new concepts, such as the concordat as implemented by Article 86 to the first Schedule. That concordat sets up an overview and scrutiny committee where the local authority is the local education authority as regards educational functions and as regards the provision of sex education in adopting the principles of family life. There should be no physical or verbal abuse with regard to sexual orientation and no encouragement of sexual activity, as proposed by the right reverend Prelate in Amendment No. 235 of the Learning and Skills Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 retain punitive sanctions against the local authority and are in implementation of the concept of the right reverend Prelate that sex education is a matter for governors and head teachers who have parental right of withdrawal. As the first purpose of this amendment is to remove the conflict between Clauses 2 and 82 as regards implementation, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will remember that anticipatory objection was taken on Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 150 and 152 of this Bill to that effect. It is the conflict between the mandatory provision under Clause 28 with all the panoply of the law, and the massive delegation of absolute discretion under Clause 2 to do anything considered likely to improve social well-being in the area, which might well bring us back to the dreadful situation as it was before Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
	Furthermore, under Clause 2 as it stands, whatever the local authority does, "to improve social well-being", that exercise of discretion would not be subject to the jurisdiction of force under judicial review save in a wholly exceptional circumstance.
	I refer to the amendment tabled by my noble friend, now Clause 82. Clause 2 was compatible with Clause 62 of the Bill when drafted. However, because of the repeal of Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 and Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, Clause 2 is not compatible with the Bill as amended by my noble friend by Clause 82 nor with either of the amendments to which I speak, nor with amendments tabled which reflect the concordat.
	The second purpose is to avoid conflict between Clause 2 and Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. Amendment No. 81 prohibits positive discrimination in favour of any group of persons, whether homosexual, heterosexual or of whatever interest or inclination as regards exclusive provision for the benefit of facilities and services not generally available on the expenditure of public funds by local authorities. It is a general prohibition and not directed against any group of whatever sexual orientation. As such it would conform with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Amendment No. 82 is concerned with sexually-explicit material of the type your Lordships have seen on exhibition. A prohibition is imposed upon the local authority against making such material available for children in any maintained school without the consent and approval of the board of governors. As your Lordships know, parents now sit on such boards. It is suggested that this is an appropriate and sufficient method of seeking to protect the children. That prohibition on the local authority is in general terms. It is not directed against any group of whatever sexual disposition. Neither the prohibition nor the method of control suggested would be contrary to the convention. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for drawing to our attention all the legal and legislative complexities we face when discussing this issue. It is an interesting coincidence that the amendment tabled by my noble friend almost follows on from the Question tabled today by the noble Lady, Baroness Rendell of Babergh. As an amateur at this game, I admire my noble friend's experience as a parliamentarian and his skill as a lawyer and wordsmith which enabled him to table the amendment at the start of our proceedings today.
	The amendment will give the House, if it chooses, the opportunity to continue a debate which it undertook for well over five hours only a fortnight ago. I suspect that the House may decide that that is not the most useful way in which to spend an afternoon. I have no wish to do anything which would restrict the freedom of the House to discuss the matter for as long as it wishes. However, it seemed to me that after our earlier debate and its result there would be discussions between the Government, the bishops and other interested parties to bring this subject to perhaps what some might consider to be a more felicitous conclusion than the one reached. However, perhaps my noble friend Lady Young might think that the conclusion we reached is the appropriate one.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. I am not here to listen to or take admonitions from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if anything I said was "admonitory", if that is not a new word (I hope that I am not inventing new words). However, I apologise if that was the case. It was certainly not intended to be. However, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister might have to say on the progress of such discussions. It seems clear that the matter will return to this House before the Bill is eventually passed. It will clearly have to go from this place to another, and to return here for further discussion. There will, therefore, be a great deal of opportunity for further debate after the discussions between the interested parties have taken place. I believe that that would be a more preferable way in which to deal with the matter. For that reason, we shall not be supporting my noble friend this afternoon.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I assume that the Minister may tell us that, as far as concerns Sections 2A and 2B of the 1986 Act, Amendment No. 1 is not necessary because, until what we have come to refer to as "Section 28" is repealed, it remains on the statute book. As with other restrictions, it will apply to the exercise of the powers of local government. Indeed, to take one example, I believe that is why we have Clause 5 in the Bill. That clause gives certain powers to the Secretary of State to repeal, revoke or dis-apply enactments which may obstruct local authorities from exercising their powers. I, too, have no wish to re-run the debate referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. As far as we are concerned, it is sad that that is the case. Our views on Section 28 are well known.
	Perhaps I may respond to one of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I make clear that we support the powers which are to be given to local authorities under Section 2. As we established in Committee, such powers must be exercised reasonably.
	The noble Lord referred to his later amendments. I confess that I do not understand Amendment No. 81. I am sure that that is my failing, not that of the draftsman. The amendment refers, among other things, to the delivery of education and healthcare and allows for them to be discriminatory. It is almost implicit that education must discriminate in the sense that it provides for individuals. I have some difficulties therefore with the clause though of course I accept the good intentions of the noble Lord to try to clarify the position.
	I have some difficulties also with Amendment No. 82. As was said, we shall return to this topic under the question of guidelines, though it would perhaps be better debated as part of the educational provision rather than simply local authorities. However, I am unclear as to how, as a matter of practice, governors would apply this provision. Currently, sex education is a matter for the governors. But for individual items to go before a board of governors for approval may prove extremely cumbersome. My experience of schools is that different governors have responsibility for different areas, including the area of the curriculum under which sex education generally falls. So governors will be involved in any event.
	I am not clear what may be taken to fall into the category of "sexually explicit" material. It could be interpreted very widely by those who are mischievous. It occurred to me that Romeo and Juliet or A Midsummer Night's Dream--particularly the relationship between Titania and Bottom--could fall within that category. It is a difficult road down which to start.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty with these amendments, partly because they are highly technical. I do not feel that they are necessary, particularly Amendment No. 1. In that regard I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was gracious in his comments in relation to myself and the amendment I placed before the House. But let me repeat what I said last week on another Bill; that is, that the discussions with the Department for Education and Employment, and in particular with the Secretary of State, continue. I am sorry that we have not by this stage been able to see amendments which may well be made to the Learning And Skills Bill, which is perhaps--as was hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee--the proper place to continue this discussion.
	The Secretary of State has to see a number of interested parties and not just the Churches. I should not like to think of it as a "concordat" between the Churches and the Government; the consultation is much wider than that. The Churches play their part and, fortunately, I have been able to play some part also. I am among those who hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment at this stage in order to allow the discussions to continue and for the Secretary of State properly to consult. I am hopeful that what will come out of those discussions may be helpful both to the House and, more importantly, to parents and others throughout the country who are looking for some kind of assurance.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I understand of course what he is driving at. I raise one or two purely technical points in relation to the drafting of the amendment.
	In relation to Amendment No. 81, I have the fullest sympathy with any attempt to secure a policy of non-discrimination. But I was once asked by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, in this Chamber, whether I could indicate a distinction between those grounds on which it was proper to discriminate and those grounds on which it was not. That is a question about which I am still thinking.
	The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, attempts to address that question in Amendment No. 81. I am not sure that he has it right. He has his non-discrimination provision,
	"save in respect of counselling, health care, education and in the prevention of the spread of disease".
	But does that adequately cover, for example, the case of disability? A PE teacher may legitimately wish to provide a slightly different regime for somebody with a club foot than for somebody with two able feet. In so doing, will he infringe the provision as presently drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? This is a question which needs addressing and if we are to see more of this amendment, I hope that will be done.
	I share the doubts of my noble friend Lady Hamwee in relation to the words "sexually explicit". I can remember some of the diagrams put in front of us in biology lessons when I was young. They were clinical, detached, accurate and about as unarousing as anything I can possibly imagine. But in the strict and literal sense they could perhaps have been described as "sexually explicit". Perhaps the Minister will take the advice of his noble and learned friend the Attorney-General as to whether or not those words have been included in previous legislation and, if so, whether we have any accepted judicial construction of their meaning. If not, we should be a little wary of using them.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I hoped that we would move into the body of this Bill rather than attempt a rerun of discussions on Section 28. Having said that, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is attempting to do, and that he is attempting to do it in as even-handed a way as possible. However, Amendment No. 81 does not do that and Amendment No. 82 runs into the sort of trouble just spelt out by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, that there are serious judicial problems in defining what is and what is not sexually explicit and whether or not it is appropriate to use those terms in what is, after all, sex education.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Amendment No. 1 is unnecessary. In relation to what is now Clause 82, the principal decision of the House was made clear. The Government did not support that. It may be that another place has a view on that and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, we will no doubt return to that in due course. However, the main anxieties addressed during that debate related to education and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn spelt out, constructive discussions are taking place between the Churches and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We will need a wider debate on their outcome, which will no doubt take place in the Learning and Skills Bill. I believe that we will achieve a satisfactory way of meeting most of the anxieties raised. It is not sensible, therefore, for the House to reopen that debate at this stage, though we may well have to return to it after the Learning and Skills Bill has been dealt with and the Commons has considered this Bill.
	As it stands, the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 82 places a restriction on local authority action. Section 2 is subject to all other restrictions, including those within the Bill, and therefore the addition of the amendment would not create any further restriction on the ability of local authorities to act. The provision of well-being is a broad power for local authorities but it is subject to all other legislative restrictions. What is now Clause 82 is no different from any other in that respect.
	Clause 3(1) of this Bill further states that the power under Clause 2(1) does not enable a local authority to do anything which it is unable to do by virtue of any prohibition, restriction or limitation on its powers which is contained in any enactment (whenever passed or made). That is clear. Moreover, the full implication of the adoption of this amendment and the related amendments would mean that the kind of discrimination to which the noble Earl referred--namely, specific provision for the disabled, for pensioners and other subsections of the community, including the gay and lesbian community--may fall foul of such a generalised provision. That is not the kind of restriction that is intended to be placed on local authorities in their pursuit of well-being because they all have varying communities containing different sub-sections that will require different treatment.
	The general intention behind the amendment is unnecessary. Its effect would be to limit local authorities in what has been broadly accepted as a positive step towards the pursuit of well-being of the community and indeed might jeopardise it. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment and that we can continue with the debate on local government reform rather than revert to discussions on matters covered by what was Section 28.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I hope it has not been felt that the time spent on this discussion has been other than useful. I am asked if I will take the amendment back, and I am fully prepared to do so. I may return to the matter at a later stage when I have read what has been said in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 2.
	Page 1, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2 and insert--
	("(a) the promotion or improvement of economic development and wealth creation in their area,
	(b) the promotion of social development in their area, and
	(c) the promotion of the Improvement of the environment in their area").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the amendment further probes the provision for the new powers spelled out in Clause 2. The wording of the amendment is taken from the Greater London Authority Act. I have tabled the amendment not because of my feeling, as the Minister suggested at the last stage, that what was good enough for the GLA is good enough for the whole of local government. I take the same view he does: one looks at the generality of local government first. The amendment does not seek to impose GLA provisions but is a genuine request for clarification. I should like to understand the nuances of a comparison of the Bill with the GLA Act. It is the wording of the GLA Act that I have incorporated.
	I appreciate that we are not starting with a clean sheet in regard to local government, but I should like to understand the distinction between the two sets of drafting. If we do not clarify the matter, it could be left to a local authority to answer that question if its actions were to be challenged by an individual through an application for judicial review. The differences between the two sets of wording, which are very close but not identical, would, I am sure, be picked over at length by lawyers. I prefer to get the point out of the way at this early stage of the legislative procedure.
	The amendment seeks clarification of the distinction between the well-being powers expressed in the Bill and the powers to promote economic development, wealth creation, social development and the improvement of the environment. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks for clarification, and, by implication, indicates that she will not press the amendment. The noble Baroness has to some extent reflected the fact that there is a difference, as I explained in Committee. The terms of reference for a new organisation are spelt out in a different way to those that build on existing statutory and customer practice functions. These are already contained in the raft of local authorities' statutory and other functions.
	I can give the noble Baroness some comfort in regard to her central concern. Notwithstanding the differences in the way the two powers are drafted, the well-being power given to local authorities under Clause 2 is in no sense narrower than that given to the GLA in Section 30 of the GLA Act. If the amendment is accepted, it could narrow the well-being power and leave local authorities with less scope to act than the GLA. For example, paragraph (c) refers to allowing local authorities to take action only to promote the improvement of the environment. The GLA has a power to do anything that furthers its principal purposes, but this might be construed as meaning that the local authorities could not do it themselves but should promote it among others. I am sure that that is not the intention, but there is a possibility, remote though it may be, of it being construed in that way.
	We believe that Clause 2 is drafted in a way that best fits its purpose and gives the widest scope to local authorities to take action to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of their communities. I hope that the noble Baroness is reasonably happy with my explanation and will not pursue the matter.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, can the Minister confirm in terms that the provisions set out in the amendment are all within the well-being powers as expressed in Clause 2? I appreciate that it is a technical point, and that that may be difficult.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is right, subject to the qualifications we referred to in our previous debate because, clearly, other statutory limitations may apply.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 3.
	Page 2, line 23, at end insert--
	("( ) Action by a local authority outside its own boundaries shall only be undertaken with the consent of the authority within whose boundaries the action is to be taken.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this amendment allows us a brief reprise of a debate in Committee when the Minister said:
	"We need to make it clear that we expect local authorities to co-operate. On the other hand, we do not want to be over-prescriptive on the face of the Bill. We would not want to be quite as limiting as the noble Lord is tempting us to be. None the less, I am happy to go away and to look at the matter in order to see whether there is a better way in which we can make it absolutely clear that local authorities should act in co-operation".--[Official Report, 25/1/00; col. 1457]
	The amendment is tabled in a form designed to tease the Minister into giving noble Lords further clarification because the Bill would permit one local authority to act within the area of another local authority in a singular way rather than in a co-operative way, which I know is not the Government's intention. Equally, I am sure that in normal circumstances no local authority would behave in that way. Unfortunately--and I use that word advisedly--when legislating it is incumbent on us all to consider the aberrant behaviour that every now and again we are all guilty of as human beings. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support what my noble Lord has just said. I have not been present at previous stages of the Bill, but I have read the proceedings with great interest. It is the intention of the Government that local authorities of various kinds and at various levels should co-operate, and that is of course right. However, the noble Baroness, who herself has great experience of local government, will know that it is quite possible for one local authority to be somewhat interfering in the responsibilities of another, and that there many devious ways in which mischievous people can act.
	If one authority wished to take action within an area for which another authority is responsible, surely it would be right to make it absolutely clear in the legislation that the other authority should be in agreement. It is a simple suggestion. I rather hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the position should be clear in the Bill, especially when one thinks about how this will operate in practice between various local authorities.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said in Committee, we have sympathy with the intentions that lie behind Amendment No. 3. The success of both community planning and action taken under the well-being power depends on local authorities, including different tiers of authority, working together for the common good of their communities.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, drew our attention to something that we in England and Wales have never come across; namely, conflicts between local authorities. I am sure that that must be a totally Scottish phenomenon. As the noble Baroness implied in her contribution, we certainly expect authorities to adopt a sensible and responsible attitude to the new freedoms that the Bill will give them. Those freedoms are intended to allow local authorities to work together and take action for the common good of their communities. We shall make this point very strongly in the guidance that will accompany the powers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked whether we are still considering some way of legislating in this area. I can assure him that we are still giving the matter consideration. However, we want to do so without imposing a disproportionate burden on local authorities. We do not want to be overly prescriptive. A requirement to obtain consent would go further, for example, than the current economic development powers, which require only consultation between authorities. Therefore, we need to continue to give this some thought.
	If the noble Lord could stretch his patience a little further, I can assure him that we will bring forward proposals very soon. With that assurance, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my patience, like that of many other people, is considerably elastic. With the assurance that thought is still being given to the matter, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 2, line 24, leave out ("affects") and insert ("limits").

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this amendment relates to a matter of preference for one word against another. Clause 2(6) says:
	"Nothing in subsection (4) or (5) affects the generality of the power under subsection (1)".
	I have some difficulty with that wording. If subsections (4) and (5) do not affect the generality of the power in subsection (1), I cannot, for the life of me, think why they are there. If they do affect the generality of that power, it seems to me that subsection (6) is wrong. I have chosen to take the view that subsections (4) and (5) do affect subsection (1) and, therefore, the word "affects" is perhaps the word that causes a problem in subsection (6). It seems to me that the House should consider deleting that word and replacing it with "limits"; otherwise, we shall have a quarter of a page of unnecessary verbiage on the face of the Bill. I should like to think that neither the Government nor the parliamentary draftsmen who are responsible for the legislation would create such a situation willingly or voluntarily. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not entirely clear as to the purpose of this amendment until the noble Lord made his opening remarks. However, I believe I am now clearer in that respect. I should point out that this is a tried and tested formulation and one that is well understood by the courts. As drafted, subsection (6) would leave no room for doubt as to its effect.
	The noble Lord is right in a very direct sense. We have set out examples in subsection (4) of the wide-ranging activities that authorities might want to undertake when using the well-being power but, as the wording of subsection (6) makes clear, this is not an exhaustive list. It also means that no other implication could be drawn. Apart from limiting the list of things set out in subsection (4), it might indicate the broad areas of activity rather than being taken as a total limit. Therefore, we feel that the word "affects" is more appropriate than "limits". With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is a fine semantic argument. It seems to me that we could debate the matter for a long time and generally make no progress. We would, therefore, waste a great deal of the time of the House, which is not my intention. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which I shall study. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 2, line 25, at end insert--
	("(7) Nothing in this Part shall empower a local authority to engage in trade other than that which is provided for in the Local Authority (Goods & Services) Act 1970.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. It has been tabled to enable us to explore again with the Minister what limits there are to this fairly general power--although it is not completely general--under Clause 2(1). I have a certain case in mind which prompted me to table this amendment. One could well envisage a situation where some shire district authority would take the view that certain circumstances in a particular village meant that it was worth subsidising the village shop and post office in order to keep it going--for example, where the post office was likely to be closed and, in any event, the local shop was uneconomic. Indeed, this is a prevalent situation across large areas of the country. Such a decision might well be judged to be an appropriate use of this power, and I would have no difficulty with it.
	However, there just might be circumstances where an authority could decide that it was appropriate for it to run the shop and that it should itself indulge, if you like, in trading in the goods provided by the village shop. In my view, that would be an improper extension of the power and something that we should seek to avoid. Indeed, that would be trading in goods in competition with all the other retail organisations involved in that particular trade. I do not believe that any sensible local authority would actually want to handle matters in that way, but the possibility might arise.
	As I said, I thought it right to table this amendment to enable us to explore exactly what limits the Government have in mind in this sort of area. We need to be quite clear where we stand. I have no difficulty at all with the idea of subsidising a village shop--in other words, you virtually invite a shopkeeper to submit a tender to the local authority for the running of the shop if it requires a degree of subsidy to keep it going. That sort of proposition would be in line with the sort of support that is given to rural transport in many areas. That is straightforward enough. However, the extension beyond that point would concern me. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 10, which is grouped with Amendment No. 5, which we are discussing. We on these Benches disagree with the somewhat inflexible line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Amendment No. 10 seeks to enable a local authority to engage in certain activities--which would be covered by proper record keeping--when it considers that is appropriate.
	It may well be appropriate to engage in certain activities in certain instances. I take up the example of the village shop. That matter is particularly topical at the moment. A shop and post office may be faced with closure because no one wishes to continue to run it. In such circumstances it may be appropriate for a local authority to play a prime part in keeping it going, perhaps for a short time until someone else is found, or perhaps for a much longer time, if necessary, if the establishment in question serves a wide rural area. Amendment No. 10 seeks to introduce much greater flexibility for local authorities in this area. Local authorities are trying to get away from the regime under CCT which did not permit them to do anything in this regard. That regime involved them in red tape and bureaucracy and they were not even permitted to trade for the benefit of a local community.
	Clearly a line needs to be drawn between a local authority threatening other local traders and engaging in activities which seek to benefit the wider community. Under the powers in this Bill and under the community planning power, a local authority will no doubt take account of the views of its local community. I believe that Amendment No. 10 is far more likely to result in local authorities being able to engage in certain activities that are seen to benefit local communities rather than being restricted by red tape as they have been in the past.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am afraid that we must oppose Amendments Nos. 5 and 10. There is a good deal of unnecessary confusion, both inside and outside the House, about the effect of the well-being provisions on the ability of local authorities to engage in trading activities. Therefore it may be helpful to set the record straight.
	At present, authorities' ability to trade in goods and services is controlled by the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. This permits authorities to charge for goods and services only where these are provided by the authority to a "public body" as defined by that Act. The goods and services Act is a permissive piece of legislation. It does not therefore contain any prohibition, restriction or limitation that would bite on the new well-being power by virtue of Clause 3(1). In other words, once Clause 2 comes into force, local authorities will be able to provide goods and services to anyone. It will no longer matter whether they are a "public body" as defined by the 1970 Act, or not.
	But, while they will be able to provide goods and services to anyone, they will not be able to charge for them. Clause 3(2) specifically prevents authorities from using the well-being power to raise money. Therefore they will only be able to charge for goods and services using the power in Section 1(3) in the 1970 goods and services Act and this limits charging to circumstances where authorities are trading with "public bodies". In other words, nothing in the current Bill will change the current ability of local authorities to engage in trading. Amendment No. 5, is, therefore, totally unnecessary.
	Amendment No. 10 would, on the other hand, dramatically change the position by ensuring that, where they exercised their well-being powers, authorities could provide goods and services to anyone--not just public bodies--and could charge for the goods and services so provided. I appreciate that the noble Baroness will be disappointed--and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, presumably pleased--to hear that this is not an amendment that the Government can accept. It is altogether too sweeping. However, the noble Baroness may be somewhat reassured to know that the Government are looking for some sensible relaxation of the circumstances in which authorities can charge for goods and services.
	The Government are currently exploring these issues with business, voluntary organisations, local government and the trade unions. As we said during the passage of what is now the Local Government Act 1999, the powers in that Act enabling us to relax any legislative provisions preventing authorities from securing best value give us an opportunity to review the legal framework covering the provision of goods and services by local authorities. We are currently looking at the circumstances in which authorities might engage in such activities; the limits that should apply; and the safeguards that ought to exist in order to protect the taxpayer and--as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, recognised--ensure fair competition. We intend to issue a consultation paper on these issues in the spring. I feel sure that the points raised in this brief debate by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will contribute to that consultation. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Baroness will be persuaded not to move hers when we reach it.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's response, which gives me comfort. I look forward with interest to seeing the forthcoming consultation paper. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.

Clause 3 [Limits on power to promote well-being]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert--
	("( ) A local authority, in considering expenditure relating to section 2(1), may only spend money, whether raised by precept, borrowing or otherwise, up to a sum limited in any one year by the amount that would be raised if the level of the Council Tax precept on a Band D house within its area were increased by £2.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, as the Bill is drafted, local authorities are provided with a new, pretty general power. However, as a consequence of having that power, they may not raise money, whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise. That seems to me somewhat illogical. In Committee I tried to excise that particular part of the Bill, but that was not acceptable to the Government. What we are dealing with here, of course, is government control over local authorities. The only reason that I can see for having that restriction in the Bill is because the Government are afraid that local authorities will let their hearts run away with their heads, and, more importantly, let their members "run away" with their council taxpayers' funds, with unpleasant results.
	Those who feel that local authorities will run away with public funds have, all too often, had their fears borne out. However, I have always argued that if local authority members wish to run away with local taxpayers' funds, they should be allowed to do so on the reasonable ground that the local electorate will learn to behave responsibly and not to elect those who are rash enough to behave in such an unreasonable way. One of the biggest problems that local government have had for many years has been the increasing tendency of government to wet nurse local government and not treat its members as responsible individuals. They are hopelessly over-restricted as a result.
	I think that some expenditure is necessary, but the Government clearly think that it should be limited. In the good old, bad old days one might have thought of the product of a penny rate as being perhaps an appropriate way of dealing with this matter. The product of a penny rate was a sum of money which had what I would call a good provenance. It permitted local authorities to expend money up to that limit in ways which were otherwise not normally acceptable within the local government legislation that was then in place. Should an emergency arise, it was judged to be the appropriate level at which the national government would begin to look at the consequences of, let us say, a natural disaster in a local authority's area. If the expenditure went above the product of a penny rate, it was then possible that assistance might be made available.
	We do not have the product of a penny rate and so I had to think of a reasonable way of going forward in the new environment of council tax and banded properties. As I understand it now, the normal way in which one assesses the impact of a particular increase in costs on a local authority is by the impact that it has on a Band D house, that band being about the middle of the range. If one has a much smaller property, one goes down to band A and the impact is commensurately less; if one goes up to band G or band H, the impact is commensurately more.
	I have hit on the figure of £2 for a band D house within an authority's area for the simple reason that it would not produce a completely unreasonable impost, but it would produce a sum of money which would enable authorities to do something useful under the power given to them in this legislation. If one takes a fairly typical London borough with about 100,000 houses, £2 on a band D house would produce £200,000. That is not a large sum of money but most local authorities would find it extremely useful. It would increase a council tax payer's burden by about one-third of 1 per cent, so we are looking at a very marginal amount.
	This seems a sensible way forward. While I am not optimistic that the Minister will say "What a frightfully good idea", I invite him to consider the amendment; otherwise we shall be in some difficulties and in a position of inconsistency. We shall be giving local authorities a power on the one hand and, at the same time, putting in place what I have called in other places an "anti-power", which restricts their ability to do anything about it, on the other. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about local authorities being allowed to make their own decisions because local taxpayers, wearing their hats as electors, will give their own views in due course. I am not sure that I would use the term "run away with the council tax payers' money", but I take his general point.
	However, we cannot support the amendment. The Minister may correct me, but I understand that Clause 2 allows local authorities overarching powers; it is not that they are being provided with one detailed additional power. Whatever the situation--even were this to be one extra detailed power--I think that the £2 limit is unambitious. As the noble Lord said, it is a matter for the electors. I am not enthusiastic about the Bill applying yet another restriction on local authorities as regards their tax raising and spending.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on his persistence. He may be erring on the side of optimism in hoping to persuade the Government to do something, but he deserves support and commendation from behind him.
	On first sight, this part of the Bill puzzled me. It seemed to me that the Government were being quite lavish in the promises to local government in Clause 2, where it states:
	"Every local authority is to have power to do anything which they consider is likely to achieve any one or more of the following objects".
	I shall not read out the rest of the clause. That seemed as though the Government were in a very generous state of mind towards local authorities.
	But then we get to Clause 3, which states:
	"(1) The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to do anything which they are unable to do by virtue of any prohibition".
	It continues:
	"(2) The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision preventing local authorities from doing, by virtue of section 2(1), anything which is specified, or is of a description specified, in the order".
	Then Clause 3(4) subjects local authorities to guidance from the Secretary of State after due consultation.
	I do not wish to pretend for a moment--it would open the door to the Minister--that the previous administration had an immaculate record so far as concerns local government. It deluged local authorities regularly in a mass of legislation, to a point which must have been exceedingly discouraging to those who felt inclined to enter their ranks. Indeed, if any over-confident candidate for local government had ever consulted me--which would be a foolish thing to do, I admit--I would have advised him or her that whatever they did, do not. The one thing they could rely on was the mistrust of the central government, of whatever party, and of being hedged around by a whole lot of regulations.
	The first clause that I quoted is a classic case. I will not quote it again. It states that local authorities can do anything that they like or think appropriate; and then the next clause states that they cannot. It hedges restrictions around them.
	I do not believe that people worth their salt will continue to want to go into local government as long as they are hamstrung by central government. At some time or other, another government must take a different line. My noble friend is entirely right to move his amendment.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. It is an important amendment on a very important issue of principle--that is, how much freedom a local authority can have.
	I recall very well that when the present Government were in opposition they were very much against the then policy of the Conservative government on rate capping. I lived in an authority which was rate capped. I remember it very clearly, not only from the debates which took place in your Lordships' House but from personal experience of its effects. The argument against it was that it denied local authorities the freedom to do what elected representatives thought right for their particular community, it was too expensive and people did not want to pay the rates, or the council tax as it would be now.
	It may come as a surprise to the Government to know that, within the party, I argued against this policy. I thought that if one wished to have effective local government it should be able to spend and, if necessary, to go bankrupt. That would be a salutary lesson all round if people behaved in what is really a totally irresponsible fashion. That is the consequence; and the consequence should come down firmly on the heads of those responsible. I am not advocating that as a policy in any sense, but it seems that what lies behind the amendment is a similar principle to that debated previously: how much freedom should a local authority have? As my noble friend made quite clear, and in my local government days--a long time ago now--there was the freedom to spend the money which could be raised from an increase of a penny rate. That was a long time ago, but it was a measure of freedom which, if they wished to, local authorities could exercise and use for particular areas. It may not have been the right sum of money, but it was at least a sum of money. If I have understood my noble friend correctly, his amendment aims to find a rather similar kind of money to offer a similar kind of freedom.
	That should not be at all incompatible with the rest of the Bill. Such a provision would be valued by local authorities. If it is considered that local authorities cannot be trusted to raise the sums of money for things which, at the beginning of the Bill, they are to be allowed to do, the amendment will at least give them a measure of freedom. Even if the Government cannot accept it today, I hope that they will take it away and consider it seriously.

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I welcome the comments from noble Lords opposite, in particular, from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who presumably speaks with some authority about his party's conversion to financial freedom for local authorities. I am afraid that my experience of 18 years of the previous government was not quite like that.
	Noble Lords may remember that I spoke on Clause 3(2) in Committee. I share some of the concerns expressed by noble Lords on that subsection. However, the comments made by my noble friend Lady Farrington helped to clarify the way in which that clause will work. Amendment No. 6 would be both restrictive in its effect and also unfair in its consequences. It returns to the old product of a penny rate. Obviously, inflation has increased the amount to £2. But that is a restrictive amount because it is not all that much for local authorities to spend and it may not be enough. It is rather unambitious.
	The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about band D being the mid-point of the range is in a sense true, since the range moves upwards from band A, but it is not the median point of the council tax range. In my own authority, over 88 per cent of all properties are below band D, with only 4 per cent being above. I am sure that in many other local authorities, that statistic could well be reversed. Therefore, the way in which local authorities could raise money would be in a sense differential. Those authorities with a large proportion of properties in the lower tax bands obviously will not be able to raise as much money as those with a large number of properties above band D. There are ways in which we may continue to explore the limit which appears to be in Clause 3(2), but the amendment is not the way forward.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being unable to speak because I am a Scot, for I cannot speak for local government in Scotland these days as it is ruled out by law.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness if she interpreted what I intended as a light remark put slightly ironically as being in any way an attempt to dissuade her from taking part in the debate. Her contribution is welcome.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, that reassurance is extremely kind and gives me courage and comfort. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, has criticised the amendment. He did so in detail and I understand what he said, but I hope that when the Minister replies, she will tell the House whether, having listened to this argument again, she believes that there is in principle an argument for the Bill to define an area in which the Secretary of State cannot stop a local authority from doing something which it would like to do in the way of raising money. We must pay attention to what noble Lords have said--I believe my noble friend Lord Peyton made the point--about the need to get good people into local government.
	It is absolutely desperate that if an entrepreneurial person is asked to promote the well-being of his area and comes upon a way of doing so by raising a little money to spend on something, he knows that the Secretary of State has the power to stop him if he so wishes--admittedly, after consultation. Would it not be possible to create some area of legislation in which the Secretary of State cannot do so in order to give councillors confidence that they may have the interest and satisfaction of doing something to help their areas in such a way?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the Minister replies, will she explain to the House what is to happen to Section 137? I appreciate that it will be required for parishes which will not have the well-being power, but, as I understand it, Section 137 was enacted because there were not at that time general powers for local authorities, so the raising of a penny rate had to be read alongside the additional powers which the local authorities might want to exercise. I have looked at the back of the Bill in the repeals section. Section 137 does not feature, but I realise that I am now confused as to how it lies alongside the new powers.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, again I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I learnt early on that irony is often misunderstood.
	I am in the unusual position of being able to agree in part and in philosophy with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, because, in using the Clause 2 power, local authorities may spend any amount of money they wish on promoting or improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their communities. I can tell from the way in which the debate has proceeded and the way in which the noble Lord moved his amendment that he would in fact be placing a limitation on what could be spent by a local authority in any year on improving or promoting the economic, social and environmental well-being of its area. My noble friend Lord Smith made it clear that a national limit would be inhibiting and would bite on or empower different local authorities unevenly.
	The Government's position is in direct contradiction to the effect of rather than the intention behind the amendment. In our view, it is for individual local authorities, not central government, to determine how they should use the new well-being powers and for local government, not central government, to determine how much they should spend, based on their understanding of local circumstances and needs. The measures that we put in place in last year's Local Government Act and are putting in place through the Bill will strengthen efficiency and local accountability. It is to local communities that local authorities should answer on how they use their well-being powers and for the expenditure that they incur.
	We welcome the conversion of noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Benches to the principle of empowering local authorities to make judgments. However, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, we believe that it is necessary, in the interests of people in particular areas, that where local authorities act irresponsibly, the Secretary of State has the power to ensure that rises in council tax are not at an unacceptable level.
	The amendment has the effect of limiting the freedom of local authorities. I apologise if in previous explanations we may not have made that as clear as would have proved helpful, but, in the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw his amendment. In reply to the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Section 137 will be repealed.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in response to the Minister's final comment, I assume Section 137 will be repealed using the powers given in Clause 5 of the Bill. I may not be correct.
	Perhaps I may revert to the debate. I thank noble Lords on this side of the House who have supported the point that I sought to make. They have done that well. I regarded this amendment as unambitious, just as everyone else has done. However, when out on a fishing trip sometimes the smallest fly used is the most successful. One often sees very large fish landed on what appears to be an impossibly small fly.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps it would help the House if I were to say that the repeal of Section 137 is in Clause 7 of the Bill.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, I had missed the point. Perhaps I may revert to my fishing trip. If one hooks a fish in the right part of the mouth, one can have a degree of success beyond that which would be suggested by the tackle used. I must admit that I was seeking to hook the Government on this issue and to persuade them to unbend. Of course I accept that the Bill does not place any limitation on what is spent on this power. I have been trying to avoid repeating arguments that I used in Committee. While there are no limits on an authority's power to spend, Clause 3(2) says quite categorically:
	"The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise)".
	If a local authority has a budget and its budget is committed--I do not know of a local authority that does not have a committed budget--and it is then given an added power under which it is told, "You may do X, Y and Z, but you may not raise money in order to do anything about that power", I am not convinced that one can do anything about it. There are not many things one can do in local government which do not cost money in some shape or form.
	I see the Minister is getting anxious about what I am saying. I am open to correction. I accept that within a budget local authorities can of course reallocate resources. Last year we debated the Local Government Bill which introduced the concept of best value. If the concept of best value is working, no under-employed resources are floating around. That may not be the case as local authorities can always take decisions. We are dealing here with a difference of degree. I do not find the Government's response entirely adequate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, mentioned how unambitious I had been. I explained the reasons for that. I accept also the differential effects of my proposal. I accept that, as I have worded the amendment, it restricts expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that point. That said, I assume that Clause 5 of the Bill, which permits a Minister to make regulations amending or repealing legislation found to be restrictive would also apply to the Bill. I envisage also that it would not be very long before a stream of local authorities were running to the Government to say, "This clause of the Bill is very restrictive. Please relax it". I envisage also that the Government might be susceptible to those pleas.
	There is a fundamental problem with this aspect of the Bill. In the light of the Minister's reply, I am minded to test the mood of the House.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wish to place on record explicitly the Government's position because I still do not think it is clear to the House. The effect that any spending might have on a council tax increase is a matter for the local authority. Before authorities increased the council tax we would expect them to look at whether they could raise money more effectively or efficiently--that will not surprise the noble Lord--taking account of what local people were prepared to pay. There is an important general point. We have said that we will look at the ability of councils to charge for the services they provide with the well-being power. That will represent a new form of raising finance. We are considering it. Beyond that we would expect this new power to be implemented within the current finance system. As I made clear, we are not precluding local authorities from being able to spend money and raise their council tax in pursuit of their own local priorities within the reasonable bounds established by other legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, appears to interpret this as the Government saying that local authorities may not spend money or raise finance in the normal way within the overall constraints that apply to local authorities at all times. We have a genuine difficulty of understanding over this point.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. We do have a genuine misunderstanding. I am dealing with the Bill. If it said that local authorities could spend on this power within their existing budgets, that would be acceptable. That means that at the present time this is an additional function which has to come out of existing volumes of money because the Bill says:
	"The power under section 2(1) does not enable a local authority to raise money (whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise)".
	That includes everything. Therefore I do not think that money is available except as would be provided by the considerable ingenuity of local authorities. That is a fairly fundamental difference. I may be guilty of a misunderstanding. If I am, I have no doubt that I shall get the result that I deserve. But I am inclined to test the opinion of the House on what is a fundamental difference.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 135.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Mozambique

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat in the form of a Statement a Private Notice Question on Mozambique answered in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
	"Over the last two weeks, the worst floods in over 50 years have hit southern Mozambique. Cyclone Eline also caused substantial damage in the central provinces. Over the weekend, water deposited by Eline in Zimbabwe and South Africa has filtered through to Mozambique causing further massive flooding of the Limpopo and Save rivers.
	"The Government of Mozambique estimate that over 500,000 people have been affected, with over 100,000 still awaiting rescue following the recent flood surge over the weekend. Regrettably, further showers and possible flooding from the Cabora Bassa dam are likely to make the situation worse over the next few days.
	"The first phase of the relief operation, involving rescue and evacuation of people stranded by flood water is still ongoing. Co-ordination of rescue activities has been problematic. We are doing all we can to make available extra helicopters and boats. As the flood water subsides, the relief operation will move into a second phase. Priorities will be urgent repairs to essential infrastructure, shelter, food delivery and medical services
	"DfID deployed two humanitarian specialists to the region during the initial stages of the flooding on 11th February. They conducted rapid assessments and liased with the Mozambiquan authorities and humanitarian organisations to plan the rescue operation needs. We despatched a consignment of over 400 tents from the UK to Maputo for the Red Cross to distribute for emergency shelter to those made homeless. We also supported the United Nations Disaster Assessment and Co-ordination Team, who are assisting the Mozambiquan authorities with the targeting and co-ordination of relief efforts. Given the deteriorating situation over the weekend, we are deploying a humanitarian specialist to assist with assessments and prioritisation of needs. We are also strengthening the World Food Programme with the secondment of two logistics experts to assist with the effective tasking of helicopters.
	"DfID has already contributed nearly £2.2 for rescue and immediate relief, including the provision of shelter, water, sanitation and health support. This funding has been channelled through the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the Red Cross, ActionAid, Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and World Vision. These activities are being co-ordinated with the Mozambiquan authorities. We stand ready to provide further assistance".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating, in the form of a Statement, a Private Notice Question answered in another place giving details of the Government's response to the flood crisis in Mozambique.
	None of us can fail to be moved by the effect of the worst floods to hit Mozambique in years. What discussions did the Minister's department have with the authorities in the two years prior to the flooding to prepare for a co-ordinated response should a natural disaster occur?
	The Minister referred to the swift reaction of the aid agencies and the Government of Mozambique to deal with the crisis. I should like to associate these Benches with the tribute paid to relief agencies such as the Red Cross for the outstanding work that they do in this field. Sadly, according to some aid workers, both the UN and DfID would not allow the Mozambique relief bodies a free hand to cope with yet another disaster to hit them. What assessment has the Minister made of the criticism of her department? Does she think that, wherever possible, UK funding should be supporting local plans drawn up to cope with such disasters and not the imposition of our own plans? Is she satisfied with the co-ordination of the relief effort?
	When a hurricane hit Nicaragua and Honduras, there was confusion in the Government's position on debt relief. Here, too, there appeared to be confusion on the ground about the Government's humanitarian relief action plan. Was a plan drawn up for Mozambique, and did the Government stick to it?
	Finally, we on these Benches recognise that Mozambique is one of Africa's success stories. Its privatisation programme is one of the most active in Africa: more than 900 state enterprises have been liberalised. However, according to Jubilee 2000, Mozambique is still having to pay 1.4 million dollars a week in debt service. What plans do the Government have in the future to take no more debt repayments in the future from the Mozambiquan Government until the country has got back on its feet again? Will the Government support the idea that Mozambique should be rewarded for sticking for so long to the very severe IMF structural adjustment programmes?

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, five years ago I had the great pleasure of monitoring the first multi-party election in Mozambique in precisely the area north of Maputo which has been devastated by the floods caused by the overflowing of the Limpopo and Save rivers. Your Lordships will understand, therefore, how distressed I feel at seeing the pictures of that same area in the condition that it is in today.
	I begin by thanking the Government for the response that they have made, quickly, in assisting the South African authorities and the local voluntary agencies to cope with this terrible disaster. Sadly, the forecast is that more rains and another cyclone are approaching.
	Mozambique is a fairly new member of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Secretary-General has appealed for neighbouring Commonwealth countries to send immediate assistance. I know that Malawi has responded. Does the Minister have news of any response from other neighbouring countries? Do we have, in our military training areas in Kenya, any suitable equipment--for example, helicopters or inflatable boats--which might be made available directly by the Ministry of Defence?
	That leads me to ask the Minister a further question. We had several days' warning of the flood conditions in Mozambique. I wonder whether DfID and the Ministry of Defence have sufficient forward planning co-ordinated to be able to provide effective help in situations such as this, given that the MoD has massive resources compared with the limited resources that DfID inevitably has.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their positive comments about the relief effort to date. I thank the noble Baroness in particular for the tribute that she paid to the relief agencies that are working so hard in the area at present.
	The noble Baroness asked a number of questions. The first related to whether or not there had been a plan for Mozambique and any assessment by this Government, with the Government of Mozambique, in relation to planning for such an eventuality. I can assure the noble Baroness that we have a very good relationship with the Government of Mozambique. There have been ongoing discussions with the Government of Mozambique over a long period of time regarding ways in which this Government can best support the Mozambiquan Government's efforts in a variety of areas.
	In Mozambique, the National Institute for Disaster Management is the central government body for co-ordinating relief efforts within which relevant government ministries are represented. They have worked in co-operation with the United Nations Disaster and Co-ordination Team in relation to the current crisis.
	We consider the Government of Mozambique to have been, up until this time, one of our success stories. We are deeply concerned about the long-term implications of the current crisis. The Government of Mozambique are a reforming government. They have been putting in place strategies to assist the poor in Mozambique and have been putting resources into areas such as education and health. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that, where we can, we should support local efforts.
	The noble Baroness asked me to respond to specific criticisms that had been made of the department. I can assure the noble Baroness that in our discussions with the Government of Mozambique concerns have been ironed out. In the short term, our assessment team together with a UN team made a number of recommendations which the Government of Mozambique felt unable, given their relatively limited capacity, to put in place immediately. As a result of discussions, a way forward has been agreed.
	As to co-ordination on the ground, we are doing everything that we can to ensure that all of the agencies that work in Mozambique do so in a coherent way. But the noble Baroness will understand that Mozambique's infrastructure is poor and the floods have made it much worse. We are doing everything that we can to obtain and pool the available data so that all the agencies work on the same information. However, it is a somewhat difficult task.
	I share the distress of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about what is happening right now in Mozambique. I visited that country very recently. Mozambique had been making very good progress. As to neighbouring Commonwealth countries, I am aware that Malawi and South Africa have to date given assistance. Malawi has provided two helicopters and South Africa has also given assistance with helicopters. I am not aware whether Zimbabwe has responded to the calls for support. We have had an ongoing dialogue with the Ministry of Defence on these matters. That department has advised us that its nearest resources are located 3,000 miles away. I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is having discussions with her counterpart my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on these matters.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I have three reasons for taking an interest in this matter. First, the Christian Churches have partners and brothers and sisters in Mozambique with whom they are in close touch, and the first messages to come back are ones of considerable distress. Secondly, I chair the Board of Christian Aid which has worked for a number of years with partners in Mozambique. Thirdly, in that role I visited Mozambique last April. Standing here one has a sense of the deep distress about a dreadful disaster to befall a country which is just beginning to pick itself up after a long civil war. We should not under-estimate the serious implications for the economic, social and cultural infrastructure of that country. I call to mind the faces of the people I met last year whom I fear may themselves have been caught up in this matter.
	Projects that we visited run by the people of Mozambique, who have just begun to move from emergency relief to development, have been swept away by the floods in a matter of days. I suspect that some of the British Government's and European funding has been swept away as roads and bridges have disappeared. Suddenly, the community is back to square one. It is essential that we do everything we can to provide relief quickly and efficiently, that we persist in our relationship with Mozambique and ensure that we put things back at least to the beginnings of development. In my role as chairman of Christian Aid, the aid agencies want to work collaboratively with the Government and all the authorities to see what can be done in the immediate but, more importantly, the long term to help the people of Mozambique to recover from an appalling disaster.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate. We cannot under-estimate the seriousness of the current situation and its long-term impact on the development of Mozambique. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we are doing everything that we can to support the Government of Mozambique through this crisis and to work with other donors to ensure that we target resources in the most effective way. We have a growing aid programme with Mozambique to ensure that we contribute to the long-term development of the country once it emerges from the current situation. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that we shall collaborate with the aid agencies. A key part of the role of the Department for International Development is to work in partnership. We are aware that we cannot work in isolation. We seek long-term sustainable development in Mozambique and need to draw in all the stakeholders so that we work towards the same goal.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, at lunch time the South Africans said that they could not give very much more help because they were themselves threatened by flooding. Obviously, the shortage lies in helicopter pilots. There was a report on the wireless that the helicopter pilots were exhausted and could not fly any more. What can we do about either moving Air Force or Army helicopter pilots to that area or even hiring local civilian helicopters? I am sure that that would be the most immediately helpful action that could be taken.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the shortage lies not only in helicopter pilots but in helicopters with appropriate equipment. At the moment 10 helicopters are operating in Mozambique and a further four are expected. However, only three of them have winches. We are doing all that we can, even if we have to make commercial arrangements, to get the right kind of helicopters into Mozambique. As I said in answer to an earlier question, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on the best way in which our Armed Forces can assist the effort.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement made in another place. Does my noble friend accept that, while what she says is a welcome initial Statement, ultimately this country and the rest of the world will be judged by the enthusiasm with which we mobilise resources not only for humanitarian relief but also for the redevelopment of the development projects that have now been rendered null and void? Does my noble friend agree that, unless we are seen to do that with at least the same enthusiasm with which we muster resources for military purposes, we shall be viewed by many in the world to have failed?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important to mobilise resources for the long-term redevelopment of Mozambique. We have a growing development programme in Mozambique, elements of which will go into redevelopment, but it is also important to note that Mozambique received a debt reduction of 1.7 billion dollars in July 1999 under the original HIPC initiative. Therefore, the Government of Mozambique can themselves download resources for long-term redevelopment. The revision of HIPC agreed in September 1999 provides deeper debt relief for qualifying countries, and therefore Mozambique is eligible for another reduction in its external debt. Once the immediate crisis is over, we must do all that we can to ensure that, in addition to the Government of Mozambique and the British Government, other donor countries pull together to ensure that Mozambique has sufficient resources to enable it to move forward in the long term.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I welcome the Government's intention to provide an additional half a million pounds towards the immediate situation in Mozambique. I welcome, too, the Minister's remarks about the remission of debt charges. Nevertheless, I am sure that the sight of many victims clinging to wreckage, trees and buildings will be on the minds of everyone in this House.
	Has the Minister seen the speculation that the Mozambique Government may not be able to afford to pay for the continued assistance of helicopters from Malawi? Will the noble Baroness ensure that that does not become an issue? Will she do all she can to ensure that more helicopters and boats are made available in Mozambique as a matter of urgency?
	Does the Minister agree with the statement of her honourable friend, Mrs Ann Clwyd, on her return from Mozambique that the situation underlines the need for a rapid deployment force which can be put into operation as soon as such a disaster occurs?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are doing all we can to get helicopters and boats into Mozambique. I assure the noble Lord that money is not the problem at this point in time. The real problem is the lack of capacity on the ground in Mozambique to mobilise the resources which are available as efficiently and effectively as possible. The other major concern is that the Zambezi area to the north of the central area--it is not currently flooded--has the potential to be flooded within the next week or so given that another storm has been predicted. We are doing all we can to mobilise resources to ensure that in that event--we all hope that it will not occur--additional helicopters and boats are available. The population in that area is something like 3 million.
	We have been working with other international agencies to ensure that there is better co-ordination when such crises occur. The question of a rapid deployment force has been, and continues to be, discussed. If the relevant organisations consider that such a force is the best way forward, I am sure that we shall take the necessary steps.

Lord Elton: My Lords, at this stage any comment must start with a cry of sorrow that so much that was hopeful has been swept away so soon and with expression of sympathy for the whole country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, may have heard something in the Minister's answer about rescheduling of debt relief which I did not hear. My noble friend on the Front Bench asked whether debt payments of 1.4 million dollars per week were being paid by the Mozambiquan Government. If ever there were a case for suspending payment, this is it. This is a good occasion on which to consider our policy of debt management towards the least fortunate countries in the world.
	My other question is entirely separate. What is the estimate of malaria incidents which may follow in the wake of these floods? What steps are being taken to prepare for them? What contribution are we making to those steps?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as regards debt relief, perhaps I should repeat the figures I gave earlier. Mozambique received a debt reduction of 1.7 billion dollars in July 1999. A second phase of debt relief is being discussed currently. A decision point is expected in March at meetings of the international financial institutions.
	The Department for International Development cancelled all Mozambique's aid debts in 1983. They were worth some £21.8 million. We are doing all we can to put pressure on other countries to do what we have done where there is bilateral debt.
	There is difficulty in getting data about what is happening. We have a small office in Maputo from which we receive information all the time. However, it has made clear that the information is patchy given the difficulties of the infrastructure. All the aid agencies are seeking to share data. I am unable to answer the specific question about projections of the incidence of malaria. Health is one of the areas on which we have given, and continue to give, support. If I receive further information, I shall write to the noble Lord.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the greatest test--my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and others referred to it--will be the renewed commitment to the reconstruction of Mozambique after this terrible disaster? When there is much talk about the restructuring of military forces on a European basis so that they can move more effectively to military situations where there is demand, does my noble friend agree that we need to consider the closest possible collaboration between development ministries and the military so that equipment can be moved as rapidly as necessary in situations such as that in Mozambique?
	Does the Minister agree that we should send our warmest congratulations and good will to the heroic pilots from South Africa? They have been doing fantastic work over the past few days.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the United Kingdom has taken a lead in the matter of collaboration between development ministries and the military. The Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence have been working together in considering areas upon which we can take greater action. However, the issue is not limited to the United Kingdom Government. We have to do all we can to ensure that our broad-based approach is replicated in other countries throughout the world.
	I agree with my noble friend. We should thank the pilots from South Africa and Malawi who have worked so heroically to rescue those in peril.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I welcome the British Government's efforts in this tragic situation. It is important that the Commonwealth is seen to rally round and help in any way possible. However, can the Minister tell us what the European Union plans to do in particular as regards its overseas development role and the special relationship with ACP countries?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the European Community humanitarian office has committed 1 million euros for relief and initial rehabilitation. There will then be ongoing discussions about the European Commission's response in terms of the long-term rehabilitation of Mozambique.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does the Minister agree that three winch-equipped helicopters are not enough? The need will be even more acute if the floodwaters rise. Since we lack heavy-lift capacity, cannot the United Nations be asked to suggest that the American air force, which is amply equipped in that direction, provides some resources to assist this crying, urgent need?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the USAID has been involved with other donors in supporting the Government of Mozambique in terms of the current humanitarian crisis. I shall pass on my noble friend's suggestions to the appropriate authorities, but I cannot speak for the American Government.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I associate myself with all the expressions of sympathy for Mozambique. Clean water has not been mentioned. Am I right in thinking that apart from people who are stranded in small groups, others have reached refuge in large numbers? What efforts are being made to ensure that they are receiving clean water?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we are doing all we can. However, we are hampered by logistical problems on the ground. Many roads in Mozambique are cut, so we have to use other means of transport. That is where the helicopters without winches can be used. However, it is a matter of ongoing concern because it is linked to the possible health effects on the population of Mozambique should they not have access to clean water, adequate sanitation and so forth.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Steel, I was in Mozambique for the first round of elections, and I am equally sad about the situation there. However, we have not mentioned the presence of landmines. How far has the demining process gone in Mozambique and how far will the lack of it make it logistically more difficult to transport materials across country when there are no roads worth using?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am able to answer the noble Lord's question only in part. The Government of Mozambique asked the British Government to be responsible for demining in the northern part of the country and the majority of mines in that area have been removed. The area is not flooded, although there is a threat of flood, and we have a small team operating in-country in the event of further problems. There have been reports about the possibilities of landmines in other parts of the country which are currently flooded, but our information is not clear. Again, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord once we receive clear information.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords--

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that the time is up. I know that other noble Lords want to ask questions, but the convention provides for 20 minutes.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 30.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 31, leave out ("(whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise)").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as noble Lords move out of the Chamber, perhaps I may say that the previous debate puts our problems into perspective:
	Amendment No. 7 seeks to leave out of Clause 3(2) the words in parenthesis:
	"whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise".
	Clause 3(2) provides that the well-being power does not enable a local authority to raise money. At the previous stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, confirmed that the clause was neutral. This debate follows on from that which took place before the Statement and we voted with the Government in the Division because of the neutrality of the position. At the previous stage, the noble Baroness said that all the Government are saying is that authorities may not use the power to raise money and that the limitation merely stops local authorities using the well-being power to raise money, whether by precepts, borrowing or otherwise. She stated that the Government do not believe that local authorities should be able to use the power to impose new taxes on individuals or business and that the power to tax should be subject to the specific approval of Parliament.
	Although we dislike the control exercised by central government on local authorities in the area of finances, we are content that for the purposes of the Bill the clause makes no difference either way. Therefore, I ask again why the words in parenthesis are required. I read the clause in its context following Clause 3(1), which states that the well-being power,
	"does not enable a local authority to do anything which they are unable to do by virtue of any prohibition, restriction or limitation".
	I do not see why those words are necessary. Indeed, the more I read them, the more opaque they seem. I repeated the explanation which the Minister gave at the previous stage about tax raising, but the words in this provision do not specifically include tax raising. Perhaps the Minister can say whether anything is added by the words in brackets. I am sure she understands that the concern that we are missing something has not yet been allayed.
	During the debate on the previous amendment, she spoke of the Government looking for a sensible relaxation of certain controls and mentioned the consultation paper. Perhaps she can treat our words on these two amendments as a small contribution to that consultation.
	We have tabled Amendment No. 9 because we remain concerned about the restrictions on charging. We are bothered that they will, as a matter of fact, act as a break on the application of the well-being power. At the previous stage, other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that the power to charge is a sine qua non of the power of well-being and we agree with that.
	The Audit Commission report, The Price is Right, previously referred to during the course of the Bill, proposed a generic order under Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which would allow the kind of flexibility that we are seeking in the amendment. Local authorities need a certainty to what they do. They do not necessarily need complete freedom, although we should like to see that, but they need enough flexibility to be able to exercise the new powers which are conferred on them.
	I am aware that the Local Government Association has been in correspondence with the Minister. The chairman makes the point that the LGA is concerned that the community leadership concept embodied in the Bill will be undermined if the charging and trading issues are not resolved soon. He asks for joined-up thinking about what he calls "powers, charging and trading" and says that local government needs the "full tool kit" of powers necessary to promote economic, social and environmental well-being.
	Amendment No. 9 deals with the charging provision, addressing the flaws in the existing regime. The order-making power in Section 150 of the 1989 Act is long-winded and cumbersome and I understand that in more than 10 years it has been used only three times. A charging power explicitly linked to the well-being power and seen to be in the same legislation, allowing the Secretary of State to designate categories of activity that are suitable for charging, would encourage authorities to develop their use of the new powers. We believe that that is not only desirable but necessary if the new powers are to be used to effect. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am perfectly prepared to accept the--

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. As this is the Report stage, I believe that if he is to reply now, that would indicate the end of the debate. If I am right on that point, I should like to say something at this stage.
	Briefly, I regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not find it possible to vote for the last amendment, which on the whole was a mild and modest affair, characteristic of my noble friend. Of course, I understand that the noble Baroness is stricken with a certain affection for the Government and would be reluctant to cross swords with them too often or too openly. For that, I am slightly sorry.
	The noble Baroness has now tabled Amendment No. 9, which I regard with considerable misgivings. Why has she tabled this kind of amendment? Is she not proposing to give local authorities power instead of allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations? I cannot remember how many speeches I have made in your Lordships' House and in another place on the subject of Secretaries of State being given further powers. I am certainly not one who is inclined readily to trust the judgment, wisdom and duty of Secretaries of State in administering the law wisely.
	I am surprised that these amendments should come from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I believe that the modern tendency to place Secretaries of State in a position where they can bypass Parliament is wrong and unacceptable. I should not be altogether surprised to see such proposals coming from the Labour Benches, but I am surprised to find them coming from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrat Party. While the previous amendment, tabled by my noble friend, would have helped local authorities, I am doubtful that this one would do so. It simply gives power to Secretaries of State. As I have said many times, I have the gravest possible reservations about Secretaries of State. They are usually much more conscious of the convenience of their colleagues and the interests of their party than they are of helping local government. I have grave reservations about this particular amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his approbation of my previous amendment and, indeed, for what he said about this amendment. If nothing else, it spares me the trouble of saying it in duplicate. It would be highly amusing--to me, at the very least--if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were to divide on Amendment No. 7. I should then be able to support her when she would not support me.
	As far as concerns Amendment No. 9, as my noble friend said, it would be more appropriate if local authorities had such a power on the face of the Bill rather than having to rely on yet more regulations. We deal constantly with regulation on regulation on regulation. I believe that that is not the happiest situation. In passing legislation, we should be able to deal with matters more concisely and more effectively.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am prepared to take a slightly more benign view of the remarks of the noble Baroness than did the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but, regrettably, as she said, only in terms of a contribution towards the consultation on the future of local government finance rather than in direct amendments to the Bill. There is some cross-over with the previous debate and with the debate which we had in Committee. A number of longer-term issues about the nature of local government finance and the controls or otherwise thereof are best addressed in a Bill which primarily is concerned with finance rather than the powers of local authorities.
	With regard to Amendment No. 7, I reiterate that the limitation in subsection 3(2) simply confirms the status quo. It is entirely neutral in its effect on the ability of local authorities to charge or otherwise for their services. It would also be neutral whether the words to which the noble Baroness objects--"by precepts, borrowing or otherwise"--are retained or deleted. We feel that on balance it would be more helpful than otherwise if we had some indication of what we mean by "raising money" in this context. The list to which we referred in terms of "precepts, borrowing or otherwise" gives some indication of what we mean by "raising money". I appreciate that the noble Baroness takes a different view, but it is our view that the words are slightly more helpful than unhelpful. There would be a little more confusion were they not to be there.
	As far as concerns Amendment No. 9, as we said in Committee, the Government accept that there is a case for allowing local authorities a wider discretion to charge. However, these are complex issues which go beyond that of well-being. A number of difficult considerations exist. In respect of some services, of course, local authorities compete with the private sector, and in others they are in a virtual monopoly position. Therefore, there must be some degree of control and regulation of their charging ability. I would not necessarily regard that as giving a Secretary of State overweening powers. However, these factors must be carefully weighed and a number of different interests consulted.
	We are considering this whole issue in the approach to the local government finance review Green Paper, which we hope to publish this summer. As a result of that review, I accept that we may need to concede that some legislation will be needed. If it were possible to include some enabling provision in this Bill which could pave the way for such steps, we should be prepared to consider it. However, we are not convinced that Amendment No. 9, as drafted, is such a provision. Certainly, our initial view is that it is little more than a restatement of Section 150 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Under that Act the Government can already make regulations to allow authorities to charge for services provided under these powers, as under others. Therefore, in this regard it does not add a great deal to the existing law and to the existing powers of the Secretary of State.
	There is a problem here and we shall address it in a broader context. However, I hope that for now the noble Baroness can be persuaded not to pursue the amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, "stricken with affection for the Government"! I had believed that we did not insult one another in this House. Certainly not. No more with affection for the Government than with affection for the Conservative Benches. I am entirely neutral.
	I shall not pursue Amendment No. 7 further, other than with this response. However, I remain unconvinced. Since the Minister describes it as being almost a matter of taste, it is quite difficult to argue because I believe that we have gone beyond the bounds of drafting technicalities. To our taste, the list is unhelpful, particularly, as I said in my introductory remarks, as it does not include tax raising. So far as a local community sees it, that is the main way in which a local authority raises money. Of course, we all know that the main way in which it raises money is through central government grant.
	So far as concerns Amendment No. 9, I worded the amendment in that way partly because I hoped that it might be more appealing to the Government and also partly because, given the complexity of the matter, I was not confident that my drafting would be adequate to cover all the points. It seemed to me that it offered a more practical approach to provide for the Secretary of State. I have no great liking for order-making powers to be given to Secretaries of State. However, that would be a more practical approach in this particular situation.
	Amidst his dismissal of the amendment, the Minister gave a little note of sympathy. Given that it will be a little while before the Green Paper is published and that inevitably legislation is some way off, I wonder whether the Government would be prepared to discuss what might be an appropriate amendment in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to take steps to make regulations and allow for charging. After all, it will still be in the hands of the Government as to whether or not regulations will be promoted. That means that charging in its proper fashion could be introduced a good deal earlier than if we had to wait for primary legislation.
	I repeat that the purpose of the amendment is to support the approach taken by the Government in terms of best value and the exercise of the new powers. We support the new powers and want to see them exercised effectively. Can the Minister give any encouragement as to whether there might be a way forward?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, without commitment, I should be happy to consider the possibility of the provision being included in the Bill. Perhaps we can engage in discussions before the next stage.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 2, line 34, at end insert--
	("( ) Before making an order under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must consult such representatives of local government and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.").

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 introduces a new requirement on the Secretary of State to consult such representatives of local government and such other persons, if any, as he considers appropriate before he makes any order under subsection 3(3). I hope that that does not confirm that the noble Baroness will be stricken with affection for the Government Benches. However, it should please her as she proposed a similar amendment in Committee. As I said then, we would expect as a matter of course to consult all those bodies likely to be affected by regulations. We recognise the concerns of the House in relation to the scope of this particular power. Having considered the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, we agree that a formal requirement to consult local authorities and others is appropriate in this case, especially as we have made clear that the power in subsection 3(3) would only be used in extremis.
	Taken together with the amendment made in Committee, which is now Clause 83--making the subsection 3(3) power subject to the affirmative resolution procedure--the amendment will ensure that any order brought under this subsection will be subject to proper consultation and full scrutiny in this House and the other place. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister. It is rare for one's amendment to be adopted by the Government without any change of wording. I am grateful to the Minister for moving the amendment which we shall, of course, support.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
	Clause 4 [Strategies for promoting well-being]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 11:
	Page 3, line 1, leave out ("is to have power to prepare") and insert ("shall prepare and keep under review").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, Amendment No. 11, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, deals with the fact that local authorities shall prepare and keep under review an overarching strategy.
	In drafting the Bill, the Government have simply given local authorities the power to prepare such a strategy and have not required them to do so. We believe that provision to be greatly lacking, particularly given the Minister's reply in Committee. We were told then that there were approximately 40 different plans or strategies which local authorities are required to develop. Given the Government's correct wish that local authorities should be community leaders, and that the community should take an interest in order to realise best value and the way forward for themselves, a coherent overall strategy is needed that can be found in one place, not in 40 different places. We felt that to be extremely important.
	The Minister went on to say that the Government do not believe that such a duty--which is what we ask to be included in the Bill--would lead to better community planning. However, since that time the Local Government Association has issued briefing which I am sure many noble Lords will possess. I should like to quote from that briefing because the LGA supports the inclusion of a statutory duty to initiate a community planning process. The association states its belief,
	"that this is an essential prerequisite to ensuring that all other local partners have due regard to the process".
	Those are strong words from the Local Government Association. It is not resisting an extra duty. It believes, as we put forward in Committee, that that would enable a much more coherent approach for the public, other partners working with local authorities and, indeed, members of the authority to see brought together all the different strands in which the local authority works.
	I would be interested to know if the Minister is likely to have a change of heart on this issue, given that local authorities would welcome a more coherent approach from the Government. Perhaps the Government would then be able to rationalise the number of different strategies they currently require. That would create a far more comprehensible picture to both the public being served and to the Secretary of State in trying to keep an overall picture of what is happening in each local authority area and in terms of best value. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is good to see the LGA being so clearly supportive of the importance of community planning as a central role for local authorities.
	Having said that, I have some doubt as to whether a further statutory duty is necessary in this context, as probably three-quarters of it already exists in the legislation on best value whereby local authorities are required as part of their best value processes to produce a community strategy for their areas.
	I am not convinced that the argument given by the LGA really bites; namely, that there is need of a duty to encourage partner organisations to treat the statutory process seriously. That will not be a duty which falls on the other bodies. Were this to be passed, it would only be a duty on the local authority which has to persuade others of the importance of working on a strategy by its stance, leadership and the wisdom it brings to those processes. I am sympathetic in part to the amendment. However, I doubt whether it is strictly necessary.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe there is a difference in objective; it is more a case of whether it should be a duty or a power. There is perhaps not so great a difference between ourselves and noble Lords opposite, or, indeed, the LGA on the issue as the amendment suggests. We disagree about the means of delivery. Like my noble friend Lord Filkin, I am not convinced that a duty is necessary or especially conducive to effective community planning.
	Local strategic partnerships can bring real benefits. A number of local authorities are already part of local strategic partnerships bringing together the other stakeholders in the area. They are already developing the sort of approach which the Government want to encourage. Those authorities, for example Coventry City Council, who have adopted this approach for some time, have demonstrated the benefits it can bring. They did not need to have a duty in that respect.
	The evidence suggests, therefore, that it is not a necessary prerequisite for local authorities to develop effective community planning. Moreover, there are other aspects of changes in the pipeline which will encourage local authorities to go down that road.
	Under the new executive arrangements in Part II of the Bill, accountability for lack of progress on delivery will be clear. The well-being of their communities should be the most important issue for local councils. Where there is no delivery, it will be clear where the responsibility lies.
	It is also the case, as my noble friend Lord Filkin pointed out, that local authorities are already under a duty in relation to best value. The best value guidance makes clear that the preparation of a community strategy, which can help ensure that services are delivered in an integrated and coherent way, should be the starting point for setting the authority's own strategic objectives. Those in turn will form the basis for reporting progress in best value performance plans.
	In the longer term there is a potential to use the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill to remove barriers to the use of the well-being power and to rationalise the requirements for statutory plans. An authority that already has an effective community strategy in place will be best placed to identify such problems and to take advantage of the potential freedoms that their removal would provide.
	On balance, therefore, we are not convinced that a duty laid on local authorities is necessary for what we want to see in terms of turning community planning into reality. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will not feel it necessary to press this point.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, it is strange that a duty will continue to apply to the 40 other plans but there will be no duty to provide something that is overarching. While I accept that the best local authorities do not need to be given a duty, much of the Government's incentive for bringing this Bill and the last Bill forward, and for setting up the Improvement and Development Agency, was to raise the standard of all councils, not to continue to enable the best to perform well. That is why the Bill would have been much stronger if it included a duty.
	I feel also that the Minister's response continues to ignore the fact that the best value duty will mainly still apply to local authorities. Of course what they do in partnership will be taken into account, but our amendment would bring in, in a comprehensive way, their work with all the other partners and other local authorities in the area. It would be much more wide-ranging than that which the best value guidance, which is internal to a local authority, will bring forward. I hope that the Government will address the fact that they are imposing a duty to produce lesser plans but no duty to produce a comprehensible, overarching plan. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 3, leave out line 2 and insert ("the sustainable development").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 seeks to bring the words "sustainable development" into the way in which local authorities prepare community plans. I hope the House will bear with me while I repeat a little history. I do this in view of the Minister's response to our debate on this point in Committee.
	In Committee the Minister did not believe that "sustainable development" was widely understood. He regretted that fact and agreed with me that we would like it to be more widely understood. I take the House back briefly to the Government's 1998 publication Opportunities for change. It discusses why sustainable development and the role of local authorities is important and says at paragraph 57,
	"At the local level, we want local authorities to develop their roles as leaders and champions of their local communities ... We will complement this through our commitment to give councils a new duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their area. These are essentially sustainable development objectives".
	That defines how the three strands fit together in a sustainable development duty. In 1999 the Government produced the publication, A better quality of life, in which the Prime Minister said,
	"Talking about sustainable development is not enough. We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground".
	Paragraph 7.80 talks about sustainable development strategies and says,
	"Such community strategies may complement Local Agenda 21 strategies, or authorities may decide to integrate the two. Local Agenda 21 strategies should also inform all other local plans, policies and programmes".
	If we leave the words "sustainable development" out of this paragraph, though it appears in Clause 2(3), the three strands of economic, social and environmental well-being will not be tied together in one objective. During debate of the last Local Government Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said,
	"sustainable outcomes and sustainable developments are central to our whole strategy in what local authorities should be delivering for their communities".--[Official Report, 10/5/99; col. CWH 26.]
	The Government came to power in 1997 with laudable aims developed through these consultation documents and echoed by the Minister in the debate of 10th May. But those aims have been greatly watered down. The Government seem to be afraid to include the words "sustainable development", as suggested by the amendment. The Local Agenda 21 steering group of the LGA felt that they should be included in Clause 4 and I believe it wrote to Michael Meacher on 4th February in that regard. I hope the Minister has a copy of that letter. It said that,
	"local authorities, their partner organisations and the communities they serve, can look forward to the delivery of sustainable development in an integrated fashion";
	in other words, the three strands of economic, social and environmental development are drawn together.
	The Government appear primarily to be afraid of the fact that "sustainable development" is difficult to understand. But how many local authorities currently have Local Agenda 21 plans in place? How many have substantially acted on those plans? If that is the main duty that now remains for achieving sustainable development it is proving a slow process and not a very strong one.
	Amendment No. 12 would make it clear to local authorities that the powers that they have to implement well-being must add up to sustainable development. The conflicts that might arise, such as how one achieves affordable housing, reasonable land use and employment and still keep biodiversity--the Government also face a conflict in relation to land use, new build and affordable housing for people--are exactly what local authorities should be facing in order to come up with the most sustainable means of development. If we do not put these words in the Bill, we discourage local authorities from addressing those issues. Further, the Government undermine their own building block clearly laid out in A better quality of life that the local authority sustainable development plan should lead into the regional development plan, which should lead into the national one.
	I am disappointed that the Government now seem to be watering down their commitment from what was a laudable aim when they first came to power. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I reject the accusation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the Government have backed off from their commitment to sustainable development because it is central to much of what the Government are proposing in the Bill and more generally in their environmental and spatial planning approach.
	As the noble Baroness so eloquently stated, local authorities should be committed to sustainability all the time. The aim of the strategic plans setting out local priorities and the actions needed to address them should be sustainable development, and we agree with that aim.
	Under Clause 4 a local authority has power to prepare a strategy setting out how it and its partners will promote the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of their area. The strategy is not about any one of those factors, but it is about bringing them all together. We are not speaking of three strategies that overlap or which might be mutually incompatible. That is why the Bill repeals the reference to developing a separate economic development plan, because we want to approach these matters in a holistic way.
	An authority that is developing a strategy under this power will need to set out how it and its partners will tackle those things together for the overall wellbeing of the community. That is the essence of sustainability and why sustainable development is written very firmly, as the noble Baroness has acknowledged, in Clauses 2 and 3. It is an indication that everything we do must have regard to sustainable development. The guidance on community strategies in this part of the Bill also emphasises that point.
	However much the Government and others repeat the term "sustainable development", it is not as clearly understood as we would like. Unfortunately, contrary to the impressions of some people, the fact that the Government keep repeating something does not necessarily mean that it immediately achieves political and popular assent. Regrettable though that may be, the economic, social and environmental strategies have to be spelt out in the Bill. Mirroring the wording in Clause 2 also reinforces the point that this new wellbeing power will be an important tool in ensuring that we deliver sustainable growth in local authority areas.
	We agree with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, namely bringing together the different areas of strategies holistically. The framework in Part I of the Bill emphasises the links between well-being and sustainable development. The noble Baroness referred to local Agenda 21 plans, and we must ensure that all local authorities implement those explicitly.
	Since Committee stage, we have held discussions with the UK Round Table on sustainable development on these very issues. We are considering a number of suggestions that they have put to us, and we intend to bring forward proposals as soon as possible. However, deletion of the references to "economic, social and environmental" in this context, and replacing them by a simple reference to "sustainable development" we do not believe advances the prospect of local authorities genuinely putting sustainable development in the centre of their approach to community planning and the rest of the wellbeing power.
	I agree with much of what the noble Baroness said, apart from her accusations that the Government have backed off. However, I do not believe that that simple deletion and replacement will achieve what she is seeking. I hope therefore that she will not pursue the matter.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that people use this term in many ways, and it is mouthed as something that is bound to be good, but people mean different things at different times. Has the precise meaning of the phrase been tested in court yet?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, to my knowledge it has not. I shall check on that point and write to the noble Baroness if that is not the case.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the Government are talking to the Round Table about a way of including what they and we would like to see in the Bill. At the moment there is only a power to produce such a plan, even if the words are interpreted in the way the Minister has interpreted them. It is not a duty.
	I hope that it is not simply a question of it being difficult to draft or pressure of time, because I am aware of the reply of the Minister, Hilary Armstrong, to the Round Table on this matter, which was that it is simply not possible in the time available to consider the full extent of authorities' existing functions and the implications of the impacts of such legislation. It sounds as though the Government are now more interested in pursuing the objectives of the Round Table in implementing sustainable development, so I hope that the pressure of time on legislation will not be an impediment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 [Power to amend or repeal enactments]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No.13.
	Page 3, line 12, at beginning insert--
	("( ) A local authority may apply to the Secretary of State to amend, repeal, revoke or disapply an enactment (whenever passed or made) which it considers prevents or obstructs it from exercising its power under section 2(1).").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment No.14, which is grouped with this amendment. Clause 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to amend or repeal enactments, when he "thinks" that an enactment may obstruct a local authority from exercising its wellbeing power.
	I suggest that it is quite unlikely that the Secretary of State will wake up at three one morning and say to himself, "I must make a note in case I forget this when I wake up at the proper time, and I will write it down now, because it just occurs to me that such and such an enactment might obstruct a local authority from exercising its well-being power". The more likely scenario is that local authorities will realise the problems that confront them, and they will ask the Secretary of State to modify enactments or repeal them.
	The Conservative Front Bench tabled a very similar amendment at the last stage of the Bill. The Minister explained that the Government envisaged a relatively informal procedure and that the matter would become an agenda item at the central local partnership meetings, and local government will therefore be able to look at the issues collectively. He stated that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent local authorities individually or as a group putting forward proposals that the Secretary of State should regulate or alter barriers, and he said that they were actively encouraged to do so. I do not quarrel with that statement.
	The process described by the Minister should be made more transparent. The Bill should provide explicitly for a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State.
	The second amendment is consequential, providing that, whether or not there has been an application by a local authority, the Secretary of State can take the steps that he thinks fit.
	The amendments do not seek to alter the direction of the Bill but would merely facilitate proper transparency, which is a word that has already been used many times in debates on the Bill. I hope that it will be put into practice in this clause.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I was delighted to see, on my return from a few days' vacation last week, that the amendment had been tabled, since it spared me the bother of returning to this subject, which we debated at Committee stage, following an amendment that I put down in almost identical terms. Up to a point, the Minister gave a good response to that debate. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising the subject again.
	One thought occurs to me in relation to the provision that we are debating. Clause 5 says:
	"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment (whenever passed or made) prevents or obstructs local authorities from exercising their power under section 2(1) he may by order amend, repeal, revoke or disapply that enactment".
	Perhaps the Minister can give me the assurance that that applies to this Bill, as well as to all other Acts. It is quite clear from the drafting of this legislation that aspects of it are particularly designed, shall we say, to squeeze the freedom of action of local authorities in this regard. After a short while, I can imagine that the Secretary of State may face a queue of local authorities--or, indeed, as has been said, a series of pleas may be presented at the central, local partnership meeting-- requesting the release of aspects of this Bill. Therefore, I shall be glad to hear that this provision in Clause 5 also applies to the rest of the Bill.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from the merits of the amendment, which seem to me to be considerable, can the Minister tell us why this clause says:
	"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment ... prevents or obstructs local authorities"?
	The word "thinks" is very tentative. If the Minister was asked whether he considered that this Act obstructed local authorities and he was not sure, he would say, "I think so". Surely the Secretary of State would not take what is really quite drastic action unless he has considered it. The usual word in legislation for such a provision is "considers". The Minister ought to consider that, whatever he thinks.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that my Secretary of State is very frequently and normally up at three o'clock in the morning. Therefore, he would be prepared to consider any application from local authorities in this regard. However, if we were to institute a totally formal process on what is intended to be a collaborative approach to identifying problems and exerting the ability to repeal or modify those barriers, we would be in a bit of a stand-off situation.
	After all, we have gone into some institutionalised collaborative activities, such as health action zones and work on regeneration and on the need to encourage local authorities to identify barriers under these powers. But if we were to have a formal application system whereby a local authority transparently, if you like, put forward a proposal that the Secretary of State had to consider and pass judgment upon, the process would be less flexible and open in practice than under the current provisions. There is nothing in the present draft legislation that would prevent local authorities or their representative bodies putting forward any proposal to the Secretary of State in this area for him or her to regulate under the powers in Clause 5.
	We are encouraging proposals. But if we have a formal legislative mechanism, I am not entirely sure that that would add to such encouragement. Indeed, it could lead to a too formalised way of considering these issues. It is possible that a particular application might be considered or thought inappropriate--"consider" is probably right in this context, but I shall have to check with parliamentary draftsmen as regards other contexts--in the way proposed, but there could be some other modification that would meet the local authority's point. It would be quite difficult to deal with that situation through a formal application system.
	Therefore, although I have some sympathy, as was the case with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, with the purpose of the amendment--namely, to make it absolutely clear that local authorities, the LGA or combinations of authorities could take the initiative in this area--we feel that a formal application system would not help the process and cannot accept the amendments of the noble Baroness. We shall, of course, give more practical encouragement in the statutory guidance in order to highlight to local authorities the availability of this Clause 5 provision on the use of the well-being power. That could provide the kind of permanent reminder to local authorities that they can put forward proposals to the Secretary of State at any time, including three o'clock in the morning. Given the Government's general openness to such proposals, I hope that both parties opposite will accept our goodwill in this area and not seek to institute a formal application system by pressing this amendment.
	In regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I should say that she half convinced me when she intervened. I shall check on the wording in this provision to ascertain whether it is appropriate and parallel to other circumstances. I suspect that parliamentary counsel has a good answer of which I am not immediately aware.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should remind him that he did not respond to my specific point regarding whether the provision in Clause 5 will also apply to this Bill.

Lord Whitty: I am sorry, my Lords. The answer is yes.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not attacking the goodwill that may apply to relations between local authorities and the Secretary of State, because I would want to encourage that. I shall leave the matter as it is, but I suggest that there are certain situations where goodwill is fine but where a degree of formality, because of the transparency and clarity, should accompany it. That is an important point. There are occasions--the revocation of enactments is likely to be quite a serious one--when the processes that would be put in train to enable all those who are interested in the subject to be properly informed would be quite appropriate.
	I used the word "transparency" because, as I said, it has been recognised as being very important in relations between local and central government. In wider constitutional terms, I believe that the Government are making a mistake here if they think that informality is the right way to go forward. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 15:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3: POWER TO AMEND OR REPEAL ENACTMENTS OR REQUIREMENTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 4 POWERS
	(" .--(1) If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment (whenever passed or made) or a requirement (whenever imposed) is unnecessary as it applies to local authorities following the enactment of section 4, he may by order amend, repeal, revoke or withdraw it.
	(2) In this section "enactment" has the same meaning as in section 5(4) and "requirement" includes guidance and directions.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, again, this amendment relates to the word "thinks":
	"If the Secretary of State thinks that an enactment ... is unnecessary",
	he may go ahead and repeal it. This builds on the provision in Clause 5. On the last occasion when I tabled a similar amendment, the Minister said that I was being rather too ambitious on the part of the Secretary of State. I replied that my ambition was for local authorities, not the Secretary of State.
	The substantive criticism of the amendment at the last stage was that it applied to other bodies and not only to local authorities. The Minister said that government should not amend or revoke an enactment without consultation. I agree with that, but I believe that the consultation should be about whether or not the enactment should be repealed and not whether there should be power to do so. In any event, I have accepted the Minister's point and narrowed my amendment so that it now applies only to local authorities. I have also changed the word "shall" to "may", although, on reflection, I am not sure whether I have shot myself in the foot a little in respect of that drafting.
	We have heard at this stage and at previous stages of the Bill of the 40 or so plans that local authorities are required to draw up. As my noble friend and I have said, we support community leadership plans, or sustainable development plans, whatever one calls them, and we support the rationalisation of the planning process which local authorities have to apply. The approach of rationalising the process was fundamental to the Green and White Papers which preceded the Bill. I may again have shot myself in the foot by using the term "rationalisation" rather than "modernisation" but I am sure that noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important that the Government give a clear indication of how they propose to proceed. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Baroness has changed her amendment as compared with the one that was proposed in Committee. While I do not think that she has completely shot herself in the foot the net result is that she is not proposing in the new clause anything that is not already contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which already enable the Secretary of State to rationalise or remove statutory planning requirements. We all agree that there should be some rationalisation. We hope that the development of the new community strategy and other aspects of the Bill will provide a context in which some amendment of the current statutory requirements in relation to plans might be sensible and deletions and modifications might be proposed by the Government to dovetail with that. However, the Clause 6 powers already provide the remedy for that.
	It is also conceivable that in implementing the strategy to promote or improve the well-being of their area, authorities may encounter legislative obstacles, notwithstanding the broad new powers in Clause 2. However, if that is the case, we can use the Clause 5 powers to make changes to the legislative framework. Therefore I am not clear that any area falls between Clauses 5 and 6 where the Secretary of State would not have the appropriate powers, which he may or may not exert, to use the phraseology of the noble Baroness. Were she seeking to make it compulsory for the Secretary of State to exert the powers, the situation might be different. However, he may already exert those powers under Clauses 5 or 6 of the Bill as drafted. Therefore the noble Baroness's proposal does not add anything to his powers as regards the ability to achieve the objective which I think we all share; namely, to rationalise and make compatible the various statutory requirements on the production of plans in this area. I hope that on that understanding the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we sometimes run into difficulties--I certainly do--through the drafting conventions in regard to using the terms "may" and "shall". One says politely that the Secretary of State may do something when sometimes one understands that he will do it and not just think about it. On other occasions we take the words at their normal meaning; that is, that he may do something and, implicitly, may not do it. I am concerned that if the Secretary of State thinks that a repeal or a revocation is a good idea, he should carry that out. However, I recognise that I shall not succeed in taking this matter any further. I leave the House with the thought that I hope that there will be fewer plan making requirements imposed on local authorities a year or so after the enactment of the Bill. We would be doing all of them a favour if we could achieve that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 [Power to modify enactments concerning plans etc.]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 3, line 38, at end insert--
	("( ) If the power under subsection (1) is exercised pursuant to subsection (2)(b), the enactment in question shall be amended, repealed, revoked or disapplied in relation to those authorities for a temporary period only.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to exercise a power of modification in relation to all local authorities, or in relation to particular local authorities, or in relation to particular descriptions of local authority. At the previous stage the Minister described what the term "particular local authorities" might comprise if they do not comprise categories such as district or unitary authorities. He gave the example of groups of authorities designated by their geographical or economic position. I rather enjoyed the terminology in Hansard which rather unusually missed the point. The Minister stated that the term "particular descriptions of authority",
	"could mean authorities which have rivers or repairing responsibilities".--[Official Report, 25/1/2000; col. 1486.]
	I think that the phrase should have been "riparian responsibilities". However, the thought of authorities with repairing responsibilities is quite nice.
	The Minister also mentioned a pilot approach. I do not wish for one moment to restrict innovation on the part of authorities. However, what I see here--I alluded to this at the previous stage--is a danger of favouritism. I understand the Minister's explanation as regards what is meant by the term "particular local authorities". However, the natural meaning of the words is not necessarily confined to the kind of group which the Minister mentioned, such as those with particular economic or geographic characteristics. They could comprise authorities which happened to have caught the Minister's eye in a favourable way in the previous month--to mention a trivial example--and not authorities which fall within a particular group which can be judged in an objective, proper and (I repeat this) transparent fashion.
	Amendment No. 16 states that if the power is exercised with regard to particular local authorities rather than to all, or to all within a description of local authority, it should be exercised so that the enactment in question is amended for a temporary period only. I believe that if the temporary period is to be made permanent, the powers in Clause 6(2) with regard to all local authorities or to particular descriptions of local authority could be used. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that there is a concern on the Benches opposite with regard to favouritism. I had hoped that my remarks in Committee had indicated that we are talking about local authorities in a particular situation. That could involve the groups of local authorities to which the noble Baroness has referred, health action zones and so on, where an individual authority or a number of authorities may be involved in a special relationship with the Government.
	Having attempted to move an additional Henry VIII power on the previous occasion the noble Baroness now tries to reduce this Henry VIII power substantially by saying that it should be required only for a limited period. The word "temporary" is not defined in the noble Baroness's amendment and I am not aware that there is any legal definition of it. Therefore I believe that there is a problem with her amendment in any case. However, there is also a principle involved here. There cannot be a standard time for piloting new approaches. In some cases it will be several years before we can assess whether or not a measure is still needed. Amendments that we introduced subsequent to the occasion when we previously discussed this issue require that the procedure set out in Clause 8 will guarantee not only extensive consultation but also rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of any order made under this provision. In that context, clearly the Secretary of State could propose a time limitation or it could be suggested that a time limitation should be established. I do not think that committing ourselves to a rather vague "temporary" in the way the amendment is drafted would help matters. Indeed, in many cases there may well be a permanent or, certainly, a very long term distinction between authorities. It would seriously reduce in general the flexibility of the Secretary of State to operate under this clause where, in particular cases, it may be appropriate to deal only with a defined and temporary period in terms of removals or of special provisions.
	I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we do not intend that there should be favouritism and that we intend there should be some degree of flexibility for the benefit of local authorities.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have used the occasion to express our concerns. I accept, of course, the Minister's good faith in the matter. We have it on record. If any future Minister were to apply inappropriate favours, it would be an issue to which we could return. I am content with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 17:
	After Clause 8, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
	(" .--(1) Each local authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that--
	(a) in the exercise of its powers, and
	(b) in the discharge of its functions,
	there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
	(2) Each local authority shall have regard to the need--
	(a) to promote equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion;
	(b) to eliminate unlawful discrimination; and
	(c) to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation.
	(3) Subsection (2) is without prejudice to subsection (1) and is subject to any provision made under any other enactment.
	(4) Each local authority shall publish a report in each year containing--
	(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during the year which is the subject of the report, and
	(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 seeks to bring back the issue of promoting equality. I feel that it is important to keep the matter on the agenda. At the previous stage the Minister said that he and his department would consider how the objectives with which we are all concerned could be achieved and he spoke about the review that the Government are undertaking. He is aware of my view that we should use the opportunity presented by this legislation to place on the face of the Bill a provision about promoting equality. If it should have to be altered and tweaked to fit in with another approach when future legislation comes before Parliament, then so be it. We are not alone on these Benches in feeling strongly that the opportunity which now presents itself should be taken.
	I move the amendment in the hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the matter is progressing. He said on a previous occasion that he saw some problems with the drafting of the provision. That is not a good enough excuse for not getting something in the Bill. I accept that it may not be the something that we have drafted. But this exchange is taking place a year after the publication of the Macpherson report and it would be sad if the House was not to take this opportunity. I make no apology for bringing back the matter so quickly. I have no doubt that it is also on the Minister's agenda. I beg to move.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in terms of promoting equal opportunities. Indeed, in her argument she could have added that the matter appeared in the GLA Bill. None the less, more recently the Government have made it clear--especially in terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill--that they are considering a positive statutory duty to promote, in this case, racial equality on all public authorities. To include a separate duty on local authorities at the moment, in advance of this legislation, may not be sensible. Indeed, it could lead to a need to amend the legislation again as soon as it reaches the statute book.
	Moreover the Government are proposing comprehensive legislation. The amendment has more the air of a general aspiration, which may in turn be differently interpreted by local authorities in a way which would be unhelpful to the shared common objective of equal opportunities. In addition, such comprehensive legislation must pass the tests of being effective, clear and able to be used. It needs to be carefully crafted before it is agreed to by your Lordships' House.
	The Government have embarked on consultation in regard to racial equality as well as in regard to the equal opportunities aspects of the Bill. We want to find and spread best practices in this area and to see how such legislation may apply to different kinds of public bodies. We are widening the consultation to include public bodies which may find themselves in varying and differing circumstances. I repeat that the Government are keen to introduce appropriate legislation on equal opportunities in a calm, competent and considered way.

Baroness Young: My Lords, I read the amendment with great interest. There is, of course, already legislation on the statute book governing the first three aspects of the amendment--that is, the aspects of race, of gender and of disability. When one comes to consider the other three aspects covered in the amendment, it raises some very difficult questions which require answers.
	Let us take, for instance, the issue of age. Are we to understand that non-discrimination on grounds of age means that one would not have a retirement age? It is perfectly arguable--one may well say this when looking around your Lordships' House--that some people of 65 and 70 are in much better shape and much more intellectually vigorous than some people of perhaps 45 or 50. But, in life, when one employs people, the reality is that, on the whole, they work until they are about 65 and then they retire. Should we say that that is discrimination? If one is fit and able, why should not one continue to work? What would happen in issues such as that?
	Other people, through no fault of their own, may have done a very stressful and exhausting job and may wish to retire much earlier. Perhaps they will not be allowed to because that might be seen as discrimination. I can see all kinds of practical problems with something which, in theory, sounds splendid but which opens up difficulties.
	As to the aspect of sexual orientation, I thought that the Government believed--at least they have said--that marriage is the basis of society. Certainly it is my own view that marriage has always been the basic tenet of society. It is only since marriage has started to break down and things have gone wrong in the past 25 or 30 years that we have run into an awful lot of the social problems with which we are now confronted. This is not the time to go into all of them. Certainly, marriage would be downgraded by the amendment. One should clearly understand that. Would a housing authority, for example, be able to give priority to married families with children? Or would that be some kind of discrimination against someone else?
	As to religion, again it is an enormous subject. Many people--for example Muslims and Jews--think that homosexuality is wrong, full stop. We have here a clash of rights and interests with which it is very difficult to deal. Before one takes up and accepts the amendment, one should consider very seriously a great many complicated and important issues of belief. As I argued during the passage of the Human Rights Bill, when there is a clash of rights between one group of people and another it is difficult to resolve. It will go to the courts, but that takes time. Until some of those great problems have been considered in great detail, it would be unwise to accept an all-embracing amendment which is unclear.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, waxes extremely eloquent on the subject of equality of opportunity. I hope that one day she will set one of her speeches to music, because she is extremely good at it. However, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the subject is absolutely fraught with problems, particularly when it comes to local authorities with their many responsibilities which impinge on the areas mentioned by my noble friend.
	I hope that the Government will tell us that they are being extremely cautious and thinking carefully about every aspect of the matter. We do not want them to get into a muddle over local authorities in the way they have got into a muddle over one or two issues which have come to the surface lately, causing anything but harmony in local communities. I am sure that the Government are right if they tell us that they are proceeding slowly and carefully and that they are considering the extent to which they need to go beyond existing legislation as it applies to local authorities.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, both noble Baronesses who have just spoken highlight exactly the need for our amendment. It is precisely in difficult areas such as housing need that local authorities require most help and guidance from the Government by way of having clearly spelt out on the face of the Bill what they are supposed to do. There should be extremely clear guidance. One should not give people houses because one believes they are morally nicer than the next person. One gives them houses because they and their children are in need of housing. The decision should be made on an objective basis, not according to whether one feels that someone is a better person in society's terms.
	I shall keep off the thorny subject of sexual orientation. However, to expect housing officers or the member of the executive responsible for housing under the structure of the new Bill to judge on a subjective basis whether people are deserving of housing would be highly regrettable. Other difficult issues may rear their heads, for instance, those relating to new age travellers. Local authorities which address such issues in the most objective way possible and which bear in mind equality of opportunity fare much better than those which take a hostile, moral tone and effectively pass the problem on to the neighbouring authority to deal with. I support my noble friend's amendment most strongly.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we are in a difficult area. I am grateful to my noble friends for mentioning the difficulties. The problem for a local authority is that in many aspects of its work, in order to make sense of a wide problem such as housing, a degree of discrimination is essential. One cannot work without that. The question now arises as to whether such discrimination involves other aspects, be they race, sex, disability, or whatever. Of course, disability might well be argued to enhance the need for proper housing.
	My reaction to the amendment is perhaps rather a pragmatic one. If the absence of such a clause were really causing major problems, I would have expected to see far more cases for judicial review of decisions by local authorities. The fact that we do not see them suggests that the community at large probably recognises how extremely difficult and complex these issues are and how local authorities do their best in difficult circumstances to try to rationalise the situation. I must admit that I am not wholly convinced that including such an amendment in the Bill would necessarily be helpful. It might lead to a reverse situation and a whole series of judicial reviews. I have a feeling in my bones that the best course is to leave well alone.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall be rather cautious about the amendment, but not on the grounds urged on me by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Carnegy of Lour. Clearly, strong views are held about morality and the way in which people wish to run their lives and to see their children and families brought up. That is one matter. However, there is an overriding principle when writing the law: equality before the law. Unjustified discrimination before the law should not be practised by local authorities in any of the areas mentioned in the noble Baroness's amendment.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, there is bound to be some discrimination in the approach of local authorities in order to meet broader needs. However, that is not discrimination on the grounds of any of the issues referred to in the noble Baroness's amendment. It is therefore not for that reason that I am being cautious; it is more for the reason outlined by my noble friend Lord Harrison. He indicated that since we inserted a similar clause in the Greater London Authority Bill, we have begun to move a good deal in terms of race relations--which is an extremely important part of local authorities' responsibilities--and we have stated our intention to introduce a wider duty in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill which, when carried, will inevitably mean that we have to return to this provision and amend it virtually as soon as it reaches the statute book.
	Although we recognise that there are existing requirements on local authorities and that the legislative requirements will be changed if and when the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is carried--and it may be sensible to clarify the responsibility of public authorities at that point--we do not believe it sensible to insert this provision in the Bill at this point until such clarification is achieved, particularly in relation to race equality pooled together in a wider assessment of the equality responsibilities of public bodies. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept our intentions in this area and will not press for this formulation in the Bill at this time.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before responding to the Minister's remarks, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it may well be the case that we have not seen applications for judicial review because there is no legislative basis for applications to be made. He said that we should leave well alone. It is because we fear that things are not as well as they should be that we are persisting with the amendment.
	I do not for one moment suggest that the situation is easy. I am flattered by the suggestion that my speeches might be set to music, but I do not know that that would take the debate much further forward other than that we would debate the type of music. The wording of the amendment to,
	"have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity ... to eliminate unlawful discrimination and ... to promote good relations",
	does not go as far as some noble Lords have suggested. I take the point that there are difficulties over age. When that was debated in the context of the GLA Bill we made the point that we were not necessarily thinking of old age; there are issues regarding young people as well. Furthermore, with regard to sexual orientation and the example used of housing provision, as my noble friend has indicated, the major consideration is likely to be not if there is a married couple with children as distinct from a same sex couple, but the children. We believe it is important that the regulations followed by housing officers should be clear with regard to the process and should be clear about what is relevant and what is not relevant.
	I must ask the Minister whether the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, can give us any further indication as to the timing. As he says, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is about racial issues, and we have quite deliberately listed other issues which give rise to discrimination in this amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a definitive timetable in relation to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. It should be conducted and completed during this parliamentary Session. Wider consideration would not be instant on Royal Assent to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, but it would take place thereafter. I shall see whether I can give any greater clarity on timescale to the noble Baroness, but as of now I cannot.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that would certainly be helpful because even if we do not take the matter any further in this Chamber, I should be very surprised if my honourable friends in another place, and indeed other honourable Members, did not wish to pursue the issues. To know what the likely timetable will be obviously will assist them considerably. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:LOCAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO INTRODUCE EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS
	(" .--(1) A local authority may make executive arrangements for the discharge of certain of its functions.
	(2) Nothing in this Part shall have effect in respect of a local authority not making executive arrangements.").

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my Amendment No. 18 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 47, 48 and 49. Amendment No. 19 comes from my noble friend on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The amendments are designed to change the ambience of the Bill from one of requiring local authorities to introduce executive arrangements by law to making it optional for them to introduce such executive arrangements.
	It is perhaps necessary to remind ourselves that the process that has led to the Bill began a long time ago with a White Paper. In the White Paper the Government set out their views on particular matters and their policy. The issue then was what should local authorities do about it. It is interesting that the Local Government Association has now undertaken a survey. One can argue as to whether the consequences revealed in that survey are the result of the White Paper setting out the Government's policy, or whether they are the result of the Government's force majeure which the local authorities can see coming in the form of the Bill. The GLA has constantly pleaded in the past that the Government do not pay sufficient attention to what actually happens when government start announcing policies at local authority level.
	The fact of the matter is that local authorities are responsive. This survey reveals that 92 per cent of all authorities have already considered or have in progress a proposal for an executive representational split: 79 per cent of authorities will opt for a cabinet leader; 20 per cent of authorities say they will go for another option, and so on; 32 per cent of authorities have consulted the public; 29 per cent of authorities have already implemented their chosen proposal for political management structures.
	When one goes on to the executive: 40 per cent of all authorities will adopt a party executive; and 60 per cent of all authorities will adopt mainly a party executive. Of those that have decided to set up an executive, 35 per cent will have this membership, and so on. That simply reinforces an argument which I have made to the Minister on a number of occasions in the past that local authorities are responsive. If an idea is a good one, they will adopt it. What I find so difficult is that under the Bill local authorities have to adopt executive arrangements. Clauses 9 and 10, together with subsequent clauses, provide for a genus of executive arrangements. Within that there are some species, but they are executive arrangements.
	If Clause 9 stands without amendment, the genus of executive arrangements will be mandatory, and any species that survives within the management arrangements of local government will have actually to fit in with the definition of "executive arrangements". That is rather less than fortunate. We have had this argument before as to whether local electors who have a vote, opinions and rights, actually deserve consideration in this sort of arrangement. I think that they do.
	If one looks at the pattern of local government across the country one is likely to see a range of arrangements introduced, probably depending very much upon the locality which is considering the matter. I can imagine some of the unitary cities wanting to go for an elected mayor, or even an elected mayor and a town manager. We shall come to that as an issue later on. In the shire areas, where one is dealing not just with a unitary authority, but with a county council, a district council, and under that there may be a town council, one has a dramatically different situation. It is the element of compulsion that is implied by Part II of the Bill that I find objectionable. If the Bill had come forward in a form which was designed to give legislative authority to local authorities to permit them to adopt executive arrangements, I would have had little to argue about, certainly on matters of principle, although there might have been points of detail.
	There is here an issue of principle which I think is rather less than fortunate in the Bill as it stands. It is with that in mind that I have introduced these amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we have two amendments in this group. Their effect is similar to that of the amendment moved and the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. At the previous stage, the Minister was firm in his argument that the Government do not believe in one form of executive arrangement across the board. Despite his protestations about the options that might be available within the three models set out on the face of the Bill, he seemed very much opposed to loosening the constraints in any way at all. I give as an example whether directly elected cabinets should be elected to specific posts or generally.
	The noble Lord was concerned that decisions should be clear, transparent and accountable. As a result of the Bill, we will know where the buck stops, but we will be much less clear about how it reached there. The noble Lord also referred to councillors being equal and we have had debates about the role of councillors who are not part of the executive. In these amendments we are not saying that the present committee system is perfect--far from it--but what we are saying is that there should be local choice. It is extraordinarily heavy handed not to allow either the status quo or what has become known as the status quo plus--an improved system but built on the present structures--if that is what, after local consultation, appears to be preferred. That is over-control by the Government.
	In addition to Amendment No. 19, we have Amendment No. 56. Clause 32, to which Amendment No. 56 relates, was introduced by the Government as a safeguard to ensure that councils progress to new constitutions at a reasonable pace. At the previous stage the Minister said that the clause does not give powers arbitrarily to require local authorities to hold referendums or to intervene in other circumstances. Amendment No. 19 seeks to put on the face of the Bill that Clause 32 will not be used when a local authority can show that it has carried out proper and full consultation of its local community. In other words, having complied with Clause 33, it should not then be forced in a direction which neither it nor its local community wants to take.
	We very much support the thrust of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and, far more importantly, are being made powerfully and loudly on the Bill by almost every sector of local government and by commentators, academics and so on. I said at the previous stage--I shall say it again because it bears repetition--that we are sad that the Government have taken one or two steps too far in a Bill where we very much support a good deal of what is being proposed. In particular, we support the powers of well-being in Part I. We are sad that we are forced to part company with the Government when we come to Part II of the Bill. We feel that we must go on pressing for the Government to listen to the voices that are making these points so loudly outside the House.

Lord Laming: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 20. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will agree with me that the amendment should refer to line 10 and not to line 15 as set out on the Marshalled List.
	The Bill has many virtues but they are in danger of being undermined by a greater exertion of central control over local authorities. I have no doubt that the Government wish to see local authorities revitalised and made more effective, but I fear that that will not be achieved by strengthening even further the grip which central government have on local decision making. Nothing could illustrate that better than a Bill which says that local government can decide on any structure that it thinks best to meet local needs as long as it is one of the models that the Government have designed.
	Whether the authority is serving a population of 20,000 or more than 1 million, whether it is in a rural area or urban area, inner city or suburban, whether it is a county council or a district council, if the Bill remains unamended, the structure adopted by the authority must conform to a model set out by central government. Even worse, that seems to give local government absolutely the wrong message, because it elevates process over outcome, it confuses means with ends and it sets a performance standard which is administrative rather than productive. I believe that the Government deserve great credit for having introduced a programme of best value which combines value for money with quality of services delivered. That process evaluates impact and effectiveness. It is at the heart of economic regeneration and it is the best way of tackling social exclusion. Therefore, I wish to ask the Minister this question. Would it not be better to continue to say to local government, "Make no mistake, your performance will be evaluated, and therefore we will continue to monitor your effectiveness, but we will do that not so much by how you do it but by what you do and what you achieve with the resources allocated to you"?
	As has already been indicated, the amendment is a variation of the "may" or "shall" debate which often takes place in your Lordships' House. It has been the pattern of successive governments to exercise a preference for "may" rather than "shall". Indeed, only a few days ago, in a debate on the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, when some of us pressed the Government to use "shall" with regard to a provision which we felt was very important indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rehearsed the argument, albeit with great charm, that the Government could never foresee every eventuality and therefore "may" was always to be preferred in the use of language in legislation. We now have the reverse of that. Although, throughout the rest of the clause, "may" is used in almost every provision, in this case the word that is used is "must". That is over- regulation of local government and takes away too much discretion from it about how it should devise a structure for organising its work and its responsibilities for local communities.
	In those circumstances, we should not mourn the poor turn-out at local government elections, or express the hope that more able people will come forward to be elected members of local authorities, or ask local government to be more innovative and to show more vigour if at the same time we tie its hands and limit its freedom even to fashion a structure to meet local needs. Furthermore, if the clause remains unamended, it will tie the hands not only of local government but of the Minister. For example, let us suppose that a beacon authority or one with action zones of one kind or another demonstrated that it could do even better with a structure different from that represented in the Bill. If the Bill remains unamended, even in those circumstances the Minister would not be able to approve such a variation. I very much hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of holding to the well-tried use of the language in the Bill and accept the amendment.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is with some sorrow that I take issue with a number of local government colleagues for some years. I refer to the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendments proposed are subtle in wording but would be catastrophic in effect. They go to the heart of the Bill and of the reforms that it attempts to introduce. I do not want to repeat remarks made at Second Reading, but we are in danger of speaking as though there were no problem as regards local government's standing with the public and with central government, whether this or previous governments. Local government has a major problem of respect, legitimacy and relevance.
	The governance arrangements are part of that problem. They are basically 19th century arrangements. The committee system may have served well enough at that time, but we are now two centuries further on. The problem is that the present arrangement seeks to combine in one body strategic leadership, operational implementation and management, and scrutiny--and fails lamentably. There is ample evidence, from Audit Commission studies and elsewhere, that none of those three functions is fulfilled effectively in one body. Moreover, the arrangement is frequently a sham: decisions are taken elsewhere.
	The Bill proposes an executive. That is nothing unusual. It is the arrangement to which virtually every other local government system in the world has moved, having experimented for years, in some cases with committee systems. Moreover, we are not asked to support a single model. Three options are proposed, and the Government have spelt out that area committees can play an important part.
	In addition, the system will not be imposed by central government. So long as local authorities consult with the public, they will be able to determine which model is appropriate for their differing circumstances. At present, there is only one model that local authorities can choose; namely, the committee system, which is flawed and which does not function effectively in most cases.
	It is seductive to think, as the LGA states, that only a few would go down this route were the provision to be changed to "may". I am sorry, but I do not believe that to be true. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to compliment local authorities on the way in which they have responded to the Bill in its shadow form as discussed by the Joint Committee in the summer. It is correct to say that most are now seriously considering the options and how to address the proposals. But, in a considerable number of cases, it is only because the authorities recognise that the legislation will require change. That is certainly what local authorities say to me, both at political and managerial level, when I discuss the matter with them. The survey evidence of the LGA affirms that.
	The LGA asked all of its members which of the three options allowed under the Bill they would choose. Over 100 of the 300 that replied answered, "another option"--which in most cases meant the status quo. If the amendment were accepted, the reform that is central to this legislation would not come about. That would be to the damage of both the public and local government. It would mean that we had bumped along in the same 19th century manner which is known to have failed in the past.

Baroness Young: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I support not only what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said in moving it, but also the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in speaking to her two amendments in this grouping.
	I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in defence of the Bill and the Government's approach. We are all saddened by the low turn-out at local government elections and wish that it were higher. However, I believe that the idea that it will be improved by these arrangements will prove a triumph of hope over experience. When one considers that in response to the referendum regarding a mayor for London barely 30 per cent of the population bothered to vote, it hardly suggests that people cannot wait to have an elected mayor and an elected cabinet or management committee around the mayor. Whatever else may arise from all of this, I do not believe that the proposal in itself will improve the standing of local government.
	Furthermore, the noble Lord is being very hard on the current arrangements in local government. Of course there are authorities which have not succeeded and which have been rightly criticised by the Audit Commission, in the press and no doubt by the public at large. But a great many have managed satisfactorily, and have been responsive to their electors and the people whom they serve through the committee structures. If, as the noble Lord says, the Local Government Association asked its members about the options and over 100 said that they preferred the status quo, that should tell us something. What are we in business for if not to try to identify the structures and forms that local people would like? If they would prefer something else, I really cannot see why, in a democratic society, we should not try to provide it for them. To say that they have only three options and that they must vote for one of those could be to say that they will choose the best of a bad selection. But if people want something which suits them better--and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, illustrated the various types of local government, the difference between big urban towns and country districts, and the tremendous variety that exists in our country--they should be allowed to have it.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, my point was not necessarily that the public had decided on the status quo as the preferred option, but that local authorities themselves have an inclination in that respect. The LGA survey indicating that most local authorities have determined which option they prefer signalled that two-thirds had not even consulted the public.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we should remember that this is Report stage and, as I understand it, a Member may not speak twice. If that was an intervention in my noble friend's speech, that is fair enough. However, that was not clear.

Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may respond. The amendment simply provides the possibility of retaining the status quo or of some other arrangement providing a change other than the three options. If the drafting of the amendment is not quite right to meet the requirement, that could be looked at. However, I do not see from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, that that in any way invalidates the argument that some authorities--presumably it is their representatives who are speaking--would prefer the status quo. They can, of course, always vote to have an elected mayor or whatever the arrangement is. This is not a debating point; it is a very serious point. Why are we in business if it is not to attempt to provide what local people would like to have at local level? I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. Last week, I had an interview lasting an hour with a consultant who has been hired to come round and talk to all councillors about the new arrangements. That focused my mind sharply on what was going to happen. It made me think carefully about whether the new arrangements proposed in the Bill constitute an improvement.
	Perhaps I should first provide some background. Oxfordshire is one of the councils that are fairly equally divided between Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour, with a couple of Green Party councillors. The county is divided geographically and demographically. It is a classic city region, with a city in the centre and a large green belt and many people living outside that. The authority is able to take land use and planning decisions within such freedoms as the Government allow within the boundaries of the county.
	Divisions among councillors are not always political. For example, there are those who represent rural areas and those who represent the city. Relationships between ourselves and the five district councils are quite good. Executive control is neither necessary nor appropriate. Although we have not had a council leader in Oxfordshire for at least 12 years, the council is reasonably efficient.
	I take up the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Filkin and Lord Laming. I believe that the real issue is whether the council is efficient and discharges its responsibilities well. For example, our fire service is the cheapest in the country and our trading standards organisation keeps winning charter marks. We were told that our education service, which was investigated by Ofsted only a few weeks ago, was lean and efficient. However, we were criticised for having an insufficient number of people in county hall to administer the service.
	Despite the fact that we have no executive or controlling party, some of the decisions that are made are difficult and courageous. For example, I refer to the Oxford transport strategy, of which I am aware the noble Baroness, Lady Young, may not approve. That is a very radical decision for a local authority to take. My experience of other organisations in which I have worked has never led me to believe that the council is overstaffed. It is extremely careful with its resources. There are advocates of change among some senior political leaders and officers who perhaps may be motivated more by personal ambition than the efficient discharge of the responsibilities of the council. However, the concerns that I express this evening reflect the views of councillors of all parties.
	At the moment all councillors participate in the decision-making process but many fear that as back-benchers they will be shut out of it. They may be denied open access to officers if the latter regard their primary task as to serve the executive. That has a parallel with the Civil Service here where it is unusual for opposition and even minority parties--for example, the two Green councillors--to have equal access to officials as the majority party.
	I believe that to reduce the role of councillors to badly informed scrutineers will make the task very much less worth while. It is extremely difficult to recruit people as candidates, and that is perhaps the biggest defect of local government today. While the low turnout is a worry, it is extremely difficult to get people of ability to come forward and offer themselves as candidates. I do not see why anyone would want the job if he was unable to deliver to his local community what it wanted. Most councillors in Oxfordshire represent one town or a group of villages and they are the only individuals to whom people can turn. They are expected to deliver a wide range of matters, which means that they need the contact with officers that they now have.
	The Government may be justified in their dissatisfaction with the performance of some local authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggested, those failings need to be addressed. But I believe that here the Government play the part of the weak schoolmaster who punishes all the pupils in the class for some misdemeanour rather than deals with the individuals who merit attention. Why do the Government want to impose these matters upon authorities that perform well against objective measures? I fully endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that what is important is the objective measurement of performance, not the form of administration. These measures will create upheaval which in turn will cost a lot of money. I do not see how they will improve local government. They will certainly de-motivate councillors of every political party. I beg the Minister not to insist that local authorities choose from the unsatisfactory and inappropriate alternatives which are currently on offer in the Bill because I do not believe that they represent a genuine choice.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, on Saturday by chance I happened to meet what might be termed "my Somerville constituency". About 10 of them were involved in local government across the whole range, including a very senior head of an authority, and in every party. They all felt a deep anxiety--I accept that this is a matter of perception--about the prospect of the cabinet system, for the precise reasons just given by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming. A number of people have always regarded local government as a thoroughly worthwhile career, many of them women at home with children who can do that but not other things. They wish to engage in public service without the expectation of much money but with responsibility and an interest in working with people. Those people believe that in future there will not be a place for them in local government, which will become a highly management-oriented business, as it were. I believe that that perception, which was so strong and universal, should be placed on record. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for intervening in a highly specialised debate.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Government inherited a situation in which local government had been undermined for about 18 years and was fraught with one-party states which they wanted to remove. Therefore, they seek to address that situation in the Bill. I am interested to hear that those on the Government Benches believe that what is now before us in the Bill will encourage the public to become more involved in local government and excited by it. A simple way to do that would be to introduce PR, which would get rid of the one-party state in one go. It also means that people would not feel that their vote was wasted and they would be tied more closely to their local councillors.
	Motivated councillors and officers will work with this structure and probably make it work very well because they are good at adapting. However, the structure will be very divisive for councillors and fairly divisive for officers. As the Government still insist that executives can meet in private, it will not give the public any greater confidence. When the public look at their local councils they are concerned with two matters: first, that they have influence over decisions before they are made. As the Bill is currently drafted, people will not be aware of the decisions and will not have an input until they have been made. The executive can meet in private and make decisions that are not publicised. Secondly, the public care about their council tax. We have already debated the money issues and therefore I shall not go over them again. Under these arrangements there is no power properly to tie the local population in with the way that their councils raise and spend money. Although there may be a few good things in the new structures, as we spend hours debating them we should not be under any illusion that they will make much difference to the public. Without PR and proper financial powers being given to local councils, I do not believe that the public will give much more of a toss than they do now.

Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, we are still debating Amendment No. 18 rather than other amendments that come later. The survey quoted earlier shows that the spirit of change that the Government seek to bring about is very exciting to local government. Local government wants to do it. The response is in part to the principle and in part to the Bill, which clarifies the changing powers. As my noble friend Lord Filkin reminded us, the only legal system that operates at the moment comprises a council, a social services committee, an education committee and so on. We have by law to work in that way.
	An interesting survey has been cited by noble Lords on all sides of the House. One is reminded of the quotation by Mark Twain about "Lies, damned lies and statistics". I view the response as positive. Ninety-nine per cent say that they are looking towards change, or will change when they see what the Bill states. All local authorities were consulted. Over 85 per cent responded. That is a high rate of response. A clear majority of all local authorities, whether in large cities, rural areas, or county or district councils, want to change; they want to move forward. There will be an anomalous situation in areas where people do not have choice.
	Although I might have wished for other choices, there is a wide choice. There are three choices on the face of the Bill. There are options for area committees, a majority party or all-party executive models. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. From his description, his seems an exemplary and perhaps exceptional authority, even if it has no leader. Perhaps each of the groups on that council work together rather than with the whole membership of the county council. The executive would be an all-party executive containing those leading members.
	I am saddened at the misunderstanding, which was exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that we are downgrading the work of council members. There is a terrific amount of work to do. Those who believe that it involves only scrutiny are wrong. There will be more time and opportunity for members to represent the people they are elected to represent. If some do not believe that, they should attend some of the many seminars which are being held.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming. Measurable outputs are important. However, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he spoke about outcomes--changing the way in which communities work. That is important; it is what people want. It has been said that people want to see local authorities deliver; in a sense, the argument about the structure is somewhat academic and remote. It is not that people want an elected mayor; they want someone who can deliver. We must give people choice. In his interesting introduction to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not cover the argument about how people would have such choice. If a local authority determined that it did not want to change, how would the people be given the opportunity to say that they want change? We must not deprive them of that opportunity. It is an important principle of this part of the Bill.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in many respects we are at the heart of the Bill. I regret that the parties opposite seek by these amendments to alter one of the Bill's major provisions. It is one which has led all local authorities to examine their structures, looking to a new way of conducting affairs within local authorities. I could go through each amendment separately but it is probably more sensible to deal with the central issues of principle here.
	All the amendments in one way or another seek to alter the requirement on local authorities to come forward with an executive structure. They seek to alter the proposition that we should separate out executive powers of local authorities from those of scrutiny powers. Those are pretty fundamental approaches of the Bill. They are fundamental in relation to the White Paper. They are fundamental in relation to the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. They are changes in local authorities which, in concept at least, are quite popular in relation to the public as a whole.
	It is true that the initial reaction of many local authorities has been negative--although not entirely negative. Virtually all of them in considering the options have seen ways in which they can improve their own structures. Even those who wish to retain what are essentially committee-based structures have seen ways of moving towards an executive structure in many respects. Some seek a wider range of options. We have to face the fact, as my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh said, that we are moving from a system which has only one model of local government to one in which not only are there three principal areas but a whole range of possibilities within those areas. We shall address later whether more options for the structure of the executive could be introduced. I think that that will be on Clause 23.
	We are debating whether we should remove the central requirement that all local authorities have to move to some form of executive structure. We believe that the range of forms of executive structure is pretty wide. I accept the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that different local authorities will require different structures and that different local authorities have different problems. That is why we have provided a much more flexible structure for local authorities to adopt than the present committee-based structure of the past 100 or so years.
	Noble Lords have referred to the 100 councils which have said they want to keep the status quo. Few of them want totally to keep the status quo. But that is interpreted by noble Lords opposite as meaning that local communities want the status quo. Such evidence as we have of the views of local communities is utterly different. We know that not all the structures have been explored and explained properly. We know that in reaching their views the majority of local authorities--I think that it is two-thirds--had not conducted a full consultation exercise with the local communities.
	We also know that the evidence indicates that over 60 per cent of people polled are in favour of elected mayors. When they consider it in more detail, they may not be absolutely in favour of elected mayors, but they are clearly in favour of a change to a more executive structure for local authorities than that which exists. They want to know who takes the decisions, who is accountable for those decisions and who will be made responsible at the ballot box for those decisions. They also want their own individual interests to be represented. That is why we provide for a powerful overview and scrutiny committee which will hold that executive to account--whatever structure of executive an authority ends up with--in relation to the interests of the individual electors.
	I agreed with much that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said. He said that we are concerned ultimately with outcome; and indeed we are. We need to place this in the context of best value, as a later amendment indicates and as we have indicated from this Dispatch Box. However, I do not accept that compulsion is getting in the way of innovation. Indeed, I would argue that had we not placed in our intentions in the White Paper the need to move towards a compulsory situation within local authorities, the rate of innovation would have been relatively limited. That is not to say that local authorities have been doing a bad job. It is not to denigrate the activities of local authorities of all parties over the past years. But a system which may have been appropriate in the late 19th century does not serve as a proper system of executive decision and accountability for the 21st century. We believe that people need to know who is taking the decisions and we believe that an executive structure is central to that objective.
	Many points were made during the debate and there was much discussion in the context of the White Paper. Much assessment and many views were presented to the joint committee and they were taken into account in making its recommendations. But the overwhelming view of the electorate and of the Government is that change is necessary. We believe that within the structure of the executive options that we are providing there is enough range and flexibility to meet every size and type of local authority of every political balance and every nature of population. We may be proved wrong. It may be proved that there is another form of executive which will do the job just as well as one which to a limited extent is constrained by the three broad options that we are proposing.
	However, we are absolutely convinced that an executive structure is needed and that there needs to be a difference between the executive function of the council and the scrutiny responsibilities of the councillors. If noble Lords believe that we have not provided enough flexibility they can return to the issue at a later stage. However, if they believe that we are wrong to insist on some form of executive being adopted by every council, we have a fundamental difference. I had hoped that we had overcome that issue and that the debate since the White Paper had resolved it. It has certainly been resolved in the eyes of the public. We are looking for local people to be served by an authority for which they have respect, whose decisions they understand and which has clear lines of accountability to the electorate.
	We may have a difficulty between the parties. I hope that the amendment will not be pushed to a Division today and that on a later day of the Report stage there will be a little more scope for meeting some of the anxieties expressed today in terms of executive structures, more flexibility and so forth. However, if the noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to pursue their amendments the Government will have to resist them and would regard it as a serious problem between the parties. That would be most unfortunate because we share much in our view of local government. I hope that we shall not fall out on that.
	I repeat that, if the parties opposite take an alternative view, they should not pretend that they are in tune with the people. On this, from what evidence we have, the people are clearly on our side.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he referred to the polling evidence as "what evidence we have". Can he place that evidence in the Library because it is a matter of concern to the whole House?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if it is not already in the Library, yes.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, we have had a good and long debate, as we had at this point during Committee. It has been a helpful and enlightening debate, although the longer we continue it the sharper the focus on the differences becomes. While the Minister may say that public opinion points in a different direction, I believe that to be the case because only one side of the argument has been presented. The other side has not been properly stated, still less have the implications of the changes been considered by the public.
	I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because it is line 15. However, it is Clause 10, and with the figure at the beginning of the line it is confusing. He rightly said that local government is all about performance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, missed the point that we on this side are trying to argue. It is not that executive arrangements are wrong; not that there is something bad about them; not that they should not be adopted; and not that local authorities will not adopt them. My view is that local authorities will adopt them. The issue is whether they should be compelled to adopt them. That is what the Bill does and that is what is wrong.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave an excellent description of Oxfordshire County Council. It sounded a familiar picture of a lean, mean county organisation. There are many about the country and I dare say that there is one in Lancashire. There may be disagreements between authorities on policies, but in my view most county councils are good at their job.
	My noble friend Lady Young made a valid point in commenting that the enthusiasm with which London is likely to adopt an elected mayor was not supported by the turnout at the referendum. Therefore, the great change might not be as stimulating as the Minister implies.
	My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth made a simple and valid point about the anxiety felt by so many people who give their lives to their local communities. They are beginning to feel that in these new structures they will not be wanted because they will not have a job that is worth doing.
	I do not want to enter a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about whether a different electoral system might stimulate greater interest in local government. I suspect that we could debate that between ourselves for many hours. However, the fact is that these changes will be divisive.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, appeared to be half in favour of the voluntary principle but was also doing his best to support the Bill. We have no problems with the changes that the Bill introduces. Our problem is with the method. That is what we must address.
	Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly spoke about the voices of local government and of commentators who have seen this dividing issue. The Minister, in his peroration, reminded us that we have further clauses to deal with at the Report stage and that there might be some reason for deferring a decision on the issue. I have some sympathy with that argument and it appears to be worth listening to. But that said, I doubt whether he will be able to resolve our problems. I hope that he will do so because, like other noble Lords, I should be a happy man. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 9 [Executive arrangements]:
	[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
	Clause 10 [Local authority executives]:
	[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 10 minutes before nine o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Epilepsy

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the level of healthcare for people with epilepsy.
	My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to initiate a debate on the health provisions for persons with epilepsy. In saying that, I must declare an interest as the president of the British Epilepsy Association--the leading representative organisation in the UK for people with epilepsy.
	Before dealing specifically with the level of healthcare provision for people with epilepsy, it may be helpful if I give a brief outline of its prevalence and touch upon the consequences for those affected.
	Epilepsy is the most common serious, neurological disorder. It is more prevalent than is normally recognised or acknowledged. More than 50 million people worldwide are affected. The World Health Organisation has approved epilepsy as a cabinet project. One person in 50 will develop epilepsy at some time in their lives. That means that at any one time 420,000 people have some form of active epilepsy. Every day approximately 82 people in the UK will be told that they have epilepsy.
	Yet, in spite of its prevalence, it remains a hidden condition that is frequently misunderstood and feared. With poor public awareness, it remains in the shadows. As a consequence, people with epilepsy are sometimes at a greater disadvantage than those with physical or sensory disabilities. Children with epilepsy may be excluded from mainstream education because of their seizures, and others may be excluded from recreational activities because of unfounded fears for their safety. I am sure that we shall hear much more about the educational needs of epileptic children when the special needs and disability Bill is debated.
	There are too many cases where people with epilepsy are likely to be needlessly unemployed or socially excluded, not because they lack skills but because common prejudices continue to exist. It is clear that the social disadvantage, exclusion and disability caused by the label of epilepsy can compound the medical problems and are a cause of great distress, so much so that people often deny or try to hide that they are epileptic. The Disability Discrimination Act will help but legislation will not of itself overcome prejudice. There needs to be greater public support, more awareness and greater recognition of the problems faced by people with such hidden disabilities. They need to be fully understood and taken account of.
	So, what is epilepsy? Some people liken it to an electrical storm in the brain. The nerve cells in the brain fire off signals randomly, causing a communication breakdown or overload. It can develop at any age. It can have no apparent cause. It can be the result of a brain injury or it can be caused by a genetically inherited condition, the onset of adolescence or old age. Each person's experience is different, dependent on what part or parts of the brain are affected.
	Approximately 80 per cent of people with epilepsy suffer only minor problems. Their epilepsy will be "controlled" by medication, and new drug treatments are being developed. Only last week there was an interesting report in the papers on the development of a vaccine which, it is hoped, will reduce seizures. Seventy-five per cent of epileptics could become seizure-free or suffer only short-lived or infrequent seizures by pharmacological means, provided that they are guided by specialists. A few sufferers have intractable epilepsy, where neurosurgery is an option. In addition, 30 per cent of children with severe epilepsy may also have learning difficulties. That means that diagnosis is a critical factor, complicated by blackouts which have many causes. It is hoped that a new digital recorder will eliminate one of those factors, making diagnosis more accurate as recent research estimates that approximately 25 per cent of cases are wrongly diagnosed. That results not only in highly inappropriate and wasteful treatments being prescribed; it can also have important social and psychological implications for the wrongly diagnosed.
	In addition, a treatment gap exists. Not everyone with active epilepsy receives medication or adequate treatment to control the seizures. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group has undertaken a review on the standards for clinical care and the access and availability of services for the NHS patient with epilepsy. Rightly, it places a major emphasis on the patients' perspective of the services available and offered. The findings show that although generally there were high levels of satisfaction with both routine and emergency access and levels of support from GPs for those patients with a mild condition, that was not the case for patients with more severe epilepsy. Even those who were generally satisfied also felt that GPs had a poor level of knowledge about epilepsy, its treatment, the side effects of their drugs and future prognosis. That shows the essential need for increased training for medical professionals, especially GPs, junior doctors and A&E staff.
	The evidence also showed that many patients become lost in the system. There seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the role of the general practice service and the hospital service, with a striking lack of correlation between the severity of the epilepsy and the level of service access. Fifty per cent of those with active epilepsy and over 40 per cent of those with severe epilepsy, who should have attended hospital, were often referred to physicians without the necessary specialist training. Other patients with mild or controlled epilepsy routinely were going to hospital when they needed only to see a GP.
	A major improvement in the quality of care would be a clarification of the role of primary, secondary and tertiary care. That could be achieved in a number of ways: by appointing lead GPs to assume responsibility for developing epilepsy services in their local area; by better communications with secondary care; and by placing more emphasis on recruiting more specialist nurses to support patients and carers and to liaise between medical and other professionals, including going into schools to inform and assist teaching staff.
	The provision of integrated care would be aided by better co-ordination and better cohesion between health, social services, education, employment and the voluntary sector. There is a strong voluntary sector. Twenty-two organisations work cohesively under the umbrella of the Joint Epilepsy Council. They all deserve enormous credit for the tremendous job that they do. The British Epilepsy Association, with which I am connected, is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. It has 140 self-help branches, involving more than 4,000 volunteers. Its importance and necessity is illustrated by its website, which attracted 2.7 million hits in 1999 and currently receives more than 10,000 hits a day. That is on top of the 28,000 people who use the helpline. I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the work of the National Society for Epilepsy.
	Another area of crucial work conducted by BEA has been its study on women and epilepsy. Until recently, the management of patients with seizures took no account of gender. Epilepsy for a woman is not the same as epilepsy for a man. In particular, in women epilepsy affects sexual development, sexuality, the menstrual cycle, aspects of contraception, fertility, pregnancy, the mother/child relationship and the menopause. The study also showed that 51 per cent of women with epilepsy aged between 16 and 55 do not receive advice about the possible interactions between the oral contraceptive pill and anti-epileptic drug therapy, which could lead to contraceptive failure. With regard to pregnancy, 34 per cent did not receive any advice about the need for there to be a review of their drug therapy. Twenty-nine per cent of women in the study who were taking hormone replacement therapy reported an increase in seizure frequency without being informed of the possible side effects. All women should have access to specialist clinics run by nurses who are trained in epilepsy in order to provide pre-conception and pregnancy advice.
	Having raised many areas of concern, it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge the recent government initiatives, such as the national sentinel audit on sudden death and epilepsy. There are some excellent epilepsy service models in the NHS. Unfortunately, these are few and far between. Too many people with epilepsy still continue to be denied good quality services.
	I have identified some of the primary reasons, but principal among them must be the low priority given to epilepsy by healthcare planners at all levels of the NHS. It is not on the NHS priority list, which consequently means a low level of resources being allocated to epilepsy.
	I have no doubt that in his response my noble friend the Minister will refer to cost. I recognise the need for the Government to set priorities for the NHS. However, much could be achieved to improve the service and level of care by reconfiguration of existing services and improving professional practice as recommended in the CSAG report and its plan of action, the publication of which and the Government's response are awaited with interest. I hate to ask when that will be. However, I know that all those working in the field are becoming anxious about the delay. Other government-sponsored reports have been largely ignored. I hope that we will have an assurance that that will not be the case in this instance.
	There is now a worldwide momentum to address epilepsy and its consequences. The UK should be playing a leading role in this, using the opportunity to share the best it has to offer and to learn from others. I sincerely hope that we will hear that that will be so.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, I express gratitude to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and for the wonderfully comprehensive overview she has given of the state of epilepsy today. I also express gratitude to organisations such as the British Epilepsy Association, of which she is president.
	I can only add certain illustrations because my interest comes from personal experience. My husband was 41 when he had his first fit. He was diagnosed as having epilepsy. When I tried to insist to the consultant that further tests should be undertaken, I was told, "Stop fussing, woman. Epilepsy is as common as dirt". We had to come to terms with what it meant for us as a family: the uncertainty, inability to drive, and all the other things that come from having a breadwinner diagnosed as having epilepsy.
	The hurt of that remark was only matched by some of my so-called Christian friends who wanted to organise an exorcism. Neither of those approaches was effective nor, indeed, appropriate. After two-and-a-half years I was finally able to persuade the doctor to obtain a second opinion. My husband was diagnosed as having a benign brain tumour, by which time it was too large to be removed successfully.
	That was 20 years ago. I should like to think that things would be different today. I have to say that I am not convinced. It is true that the public at large are more ready to accept epilepsy as a condition that many more people have than they had at first supposed. It is true that employment issues are becoming a little easier. Insurance is now a little easier to acquire. People are not quite so ready to hide their condition and therefore accept support from the self-help groups and organisations which offer it.
	However, I should like an assurance that when this disease is presented it will not just be considered as a condition. Now that there is a little more recognition of epilepsy as a condition, there is a danger that it is too easy to accept that and not see it as a symptom of other conditions. I should not like to see such recognition and acceptance mean less investigative procedures which would rule out other underlying conditions which should be treated.
	I should also like to underline the issue of long-term management of epilepsy. Once a drug regime is established, it is too easy to continue it and for visits to hospital consultants to be hived off to those for whom it would be good practice to see the patient but who have hardly ever read the notes, let alone looked carefully at the lifestyle and the quality of life of that patient.
	I pay tribute to our GP who, by his own interest in my husband's case, managed to find a further drug. When he challenged the hospital, he was told, "We had considered it, but it was very expensive". This is not just a question of resources but of quality of care, which makes such a difference not just to the lifestyle of the person suffering from the condition or symptom, but to the whole family and community in which we live. It is important that resources are available, but also that education is offered to those responsible for care and to society as a whole.
	I am grateful that this issue has been raised in this place.

Lord Rea: My Lords, once again my noble friend has put her finger on a subject which may not be prominent in the public eye but which is important to those affected in an area where, as she pointed out, we as a Government may not be doing enough.
	As a doctor working in general practice in the National Health Service, I, like many others, felt that my treatment of those with epilepsy was somehow unsatisfactory and unsatisfying. This was partly because of the variable nature of the condition and the understandable reluctance of some patients to take medication regularly at the dose recommended by the neurologist who had last seen them often years previously. Sometimes they were reluctant to take such treatment because of side-effects including drowsiness or dizziness which patients sometimes perceived to be as much of a problem as the attacks.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said, several new preparations have recently become available, at a price, which are sometimes more effective. However, I found that getting a patient an appointment with a neurologist, especially one with a particular interest in epilepsy, to assess or reassess the patient and advise on the most appropriate treatment often took several months.
	These initial random remarks are based on the first thoughts that came to mind when thinking about my experience as a practising GP. To consider the condition more generally, epilepsy is the name given to the condition in which a patient experiences two or more unprovoked epileptic seizures. These start in the grey matter of the brain and consist of a paroxysmal burst of nervous activity that is uncontrolled and unpredictable. Sometimes the condition starts in childhood and goes on throughout life.
	In all except the most severe case the attacks can be stopped or greatly reduced by anti-epileptic medication. Sometimes, and more so if it is adequately controlled by medication, epilepsy can go into full remission and the medication can be reduced and finally stopped. One study mentioned by my noble friend, Lady Gould, suggests that as many as 75 per cent of people with epilepsy will become seizure free within two years if treated appropriately. A number of those will be able to stop medication permanently. In certain abnormal conditions anyone can have an epileptic seizure; for example, children in response to high fever, or alcoholics coming down from a very high blood alcohol level. Such isolated attacks with a known cause do not justify a diagnosis of epilepsy. One in 25 of the population may experience an epileptic type of seizure at some time in their lives.
	Persons with epilepsy as such have an increased tendency to develop an epileptic seizure in response to a given stimulus. Sometimes--often even--there may be no apparent provoking stimulus at all. Seizures can be of varied character ranging from the full-blown tonic/clonic convulsion where the whole body goes rigid followed by shaking spasms with loss of consciousness in what used to be called a grand mal attack, usually preceded by a warning aura of altered consciousness, to less severe, localised seizures, sometimes involving no loss of consciousness or perhaps petit mal where consciousness is lost temporarily without muscular spasms. There are also sensory seizures such as temporal lobe epilepsy which result in altered perception of the outer world and inappropriate behaviour.
	Some epileptic episodes, especially if they occur for the first time in adult life, may be due to other pathological conditions--as the husband of the noble Baroness found--which can be detected by suitable investigations; for example, scans of one kind or another. The most serious of these may be primary or secondary brain tumours. The need for rapid access to specialist investigation is clear in that case, but delay can also be distressing for someone with early primary or "idiopathic" epilepsy since treatment is usually not started until investigations are completed and diagnosis achieved. Several distressing attacks may occur, one of which could be fatal, during the wait.
	To complicate matters, there are other conditions which mimic epilepsy. For instance, hysterical patients can put on a close approximation of an attack at moments which suit their highly skilled, manipulative behaviour. To make matters more difficult, there are no reliable diagnostic tests for idiopathic epilepsy. Various forms of brain scan are useful in detecting structural lesions which may have provoked the seizures, but not for epilepsy itself where diagnosis depends more than anything on taking a detailed and careful history, particularly noting the account of witnesses. It is true that epilepsy runs in families, but at present inheritance is not predictable or detectable in utero since multiple genes are concerned.
	Epilepsy is one of a group of chronic relapsing conditions which are increasingly providing the bulk of the workload of the National Health Service at both primary and secondary level, including asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure and depression. Acute diseases which could be cured by timely medication or surgery with full recovery are becoming less common, and if they do occur they are more quickly and easily dealt with. Improved medical science and better living standards share the credit for that. But it does mean, not only because the population is living longer, that a number of debilitating but mainly non-fatal conditions, which always existed, are now revealed more clearly and constitute a new challenge.
	Most of today's doctors are not particularly good at the long-term approach needed to cope with chronic illness. "Carry on taking the tablets" is of course the caricature of the current approach. A new strategy is needed which takes a wider view of the needs of the patient with chronic or episodic illness. In this week's British Medical Journal a number of articles and an editorial are published looking at models of good care for those with chronic disease. The two main conditions chosen are asthma and depression which, like epilepsy, carries a social stigma.
	The main themes, as I see them, are, first, the need to acknowledge the importance of partnership with patients in managing their care, and, secondly, the importance of a readily available named carer, not necessarily a doctor. There should be open access to follow-up clinics rather than three or six-monthly appointments. That more flexible approach may actually decrease the numbers currently attending outpatient or primary care follow-up clinics. I commend the articles in this week's British Medical Journal to the Department of Health. I do not have time in this debate to detail them for the benefit of the House.
	How does the possibility of these improved methods of care look in comparison with the current situation in epilepsy care? Unfortunately, the short answer is: rather Utopian. Most of the support for patients with epilepsy comes from the several charities set up for the purpose, as mentioned by both noble Baronesses. Can my noble friend say when the Government are going to respond to the report of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group under the chairmanship of Professor Shorvon? It was sent to the Department of Health last year. Perhaps my noble friend can give a preliminary response now.
	I can only emphasise some of the recommendations and requests made by the National Epilepsy Council and expressed by my noble friend to improve the current situation, which is not good enough. There is need to speed up the referral process for patients to see epilepsy specialists. That is not quite the same as referral to neurologists, not all of whom are interested in epilepsy. Neuro-psychiatrists may offer a better service. I am not sure that the current expansion of 7 per cent per annum of neurologists is adequate. There is also a great need to recruit and train general practitioners to take the lead and enthuse others in their local areas or primary care groups in all areas of the country through postgraduate training and the professional grapevine.
	Finally, there is a particular need to recruit and train more specialist epilepsy nurses. To start with, they will have to work as an outreach service from neurology clinics, but ideally they should be based in primary care. There are too many deaths among those with epilepsy--600 were counted in 1995. The cause of many of those remains obscure but is almost certainly related to inadequate control of seizures. I hope the current National Sentinel study on mortality associated with epilepsy will produce results which reinforce the need to upgrade services for this unsung, deserving but too often neglected group of people.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, not only on initiating this important debate tonight, but also on the concise and comprehensive way in which she introduced a complicated subject in a short space of time.
	In preparing for this debate, the most striking set of facts is one that I came across in the annual report of the National Society for Epilepsy, which gave a short summary of a Gallup Poll which had been carried out over the past year. Some telling points were made in that survey. First, the majority of those surveyed did not know what to do if someone had an epileptic seizure; one third of those surveyed would put something in the patient's mouth during a seizure or hold them down, both potentially dangerous procedures; and 78 per cent of those surveyed would call an ambulance, which is not necessary unless the seizure lasts for more than five minutes. Finally, most of those surveyed believed that they had only a one in 500 chance of developing the condition when in fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, pointed out, one in 50 has a chance of developing the condition. So that survey graphically illustrated just how little public understanding of the condition there is, despite the fact that it is the most common neurological disorder in the world. Around 420,000 people in this country suffer from epilepsy.
	More information on the subject is needed, such as that contained in the British Epilepsy Association booklet. I pay tribute to the association for producing that kind of information, and I pay tribute to its work on its 50th anniversary. But it is difficult for the public to understand the condition. The causes are often not known; it is not necessarily inherited; it arises suddenly and death from epilepsy can tragically be extremely sudden. Around 1,000 people each year die of epilepsy from a condition known as "sudden unexpected death". I welcome the fact that a national survey, funded by the Government, is being carried out by the National Society for Epilepsy. One of the problems arising from the lack of public understanding is that there is concealment of their condition by those who suffer from epilepsy.
	Another important survey which I came across in preparing for this debate was contained in January's BMJ. It dealt with what is a fairly typical group of patients in Norfolk. The survey illustrates that in that area there is very high unemployment among those who suffer from epilepsy--an average of 34 per cent compared with 9 per cent in the general population. That conceals an even worse picture, because underneath that, among those with uncontrolled seizures there is an unemployment rate of 47 per cent, but where it is concealed among those with controlled seizures, only 17 per cent are unemployed. Clearly, for those who are concealing the nature of their condition, there seems to be an incentive to carry on concealing it.
	There is, clearly, an under-reporting of seizures. Patients were more willing in this survey to report to an anonymous questionnaire that they had seizures than they were to their own GPs. The survey concluded that this may be due to the fear of losing their driving licences or their jobs.
	It is clear that we need much better public understanding of the nature of epilepsy, particularly among employers. According to the National Society for Epilepsy, those who are in employment have fewer accidents than other employees, and take less time off work.
	We hope that the Disability Discrimination Act, which these Benches strongly supported, will improve matters. I pay tribute to all those voluntary organisations that are involved in dispelling myths about epilepsy--for example, the British Epilepsy Association and the National Society for Epilepsy.
	We need to review the issue of driving licences. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, referred to the shock of losing a driving licence and having to come to terms with it. At the moment, those with epilepsy need to be free of seizures for one year before they can regain their driving licence. What is the real basis for this? There appears to be little evidence that certain types of epilepsy are predictive of an increased accident rate. In Wisconsin the current restriction on driving without seizures is three months.
	The current law appears to lead to concealment, as the authors of the BMJ paper pointed out. The consequences of that concealment mean that those people are not receiving the treatment they need.
	These are major issues, but there are other issues surrounding the treatment of epilepsy. There is a shortage of epilepsy specialists, doctors and nurses, despite the creation of Sapphire Nurses. There are very long waiting times, although of course it is absolutely vital that those who have had their first reported seizure should see a specialist quickly.
	There is a very low accuracy of diagnosis and a great deal of ignorance among general practitioners.
	We have heard about the issue of drugs that have considerable side effects, for example, Epilin. Are we sure that adequate resources are devoted to the provision of drugs that do not have side effects? In other areas of treatment, are there sufficient MRI scanners?
	The programme of research being carried out at Queen's Square and at Chalfont St Peter must obviously be commended, but a chair in epilepsy is long overdue, since it is a condition that affects so many people in this country. Seventy-five per cent of people with epilepsy can become seizure-free within two years, when treated by specialist consultants. Is that not the key? We should be heeding the call of the Joint Epilepsy Council for better standards. There seems to be a form of post code treatment for epilepsy in this country, as with so many other conditions.
	The noble Baroness mentioned some of the standards for which the JEC is calling, and I strongly support some of those: for example, the right of patients to receive an appointment to see an epilepsy specialist who can diagnose and initiate treatment within four weeks. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pointed out, failure to see a specialist early can cause not only distress but considerable danger to the patient. There should be improved services at primary care level by appointing lead GPs to assume responsibility for developing epilepsy services in their area, better integration and co-ordination between health, social services and other agencies, and of course the recruitment of more specialist epilepsy nurses to support patients and carers.
	I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope he can give us an assurance that improvements are on the way as a result of the independent report on standards of care and service provision. I very much hope that he can offer more than what the noble Lord, Lord Rea, described as "the usual tablets".

Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be more than grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for initiating the debate this evening and for the very clear and persuasive way in which she did so.
	Like the noble Baroness, I too am proud to have an interest to declare, as President of the National Society for Epilepsy, a charity founded over a hundred years ago and now one of the leading organisations in the world dedicated to the treatment of people with epilepsy and to improving our understanding of this often debilitating condition.
	Anyone coming to this subject afresh cannot fail to be struck by one feature, to which nearly every speaker has referred, and that is the prevalence of epilepsy. It is far and away the most common serious neurological condition, affecting one in two hundred people. Its incidence is similar to that of diabetes and asthma. It is ten times more common than MS. Despite that, it is an affliction that lurks in the shadows, as the noble Baroness said.
	We might sometimes be tempted to think that this liberated age of ours has banished all the taboos of past generations but that, alas, is not true for epilepsy. Many, if not most, of those who have epilepsy are reluctant to admit the fact publicly. The result is that epilepsy lacks one of the very things that it most needs, which is a co-ordinated voice from patients. It is in a real sense a Cinderella condition.
	The low standing of epilepsy in the public mind also means that those few advocates that it has among clinicians are unable to make their voices heard as prominently as they deserve to be. This is more than just a pity; it is a cause of shame, not least because of the huge strides that have been made over the past five or six years in treating people with epilepsy. The headquarters of the National Society for Epilepsy in Chalfont St Peter is a centre of tertiary referral for those patients, about 10 per cent of the total, who have a severe and continuing form of the condition. It houses the only magnetic resonance imaging unit in the world dedicated to the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy. Before that unit was opened in 1994 doctors at the centre were able to find a cause for a patient's epilepsy in only 20 per cent of cases. Now, thanks to far more accurate imaging from the MRI scanner, the figure is as high as 70 per cent.
	Finding the cause of a patient's epilepsy is not just an academic exercise; it can often be the key that unlocks the door to a complete cure through surgery. These techniques were undreamed of only a handful of years ago, and it is perhaps not surprising that demand for places at the society's assessment centre is very high indeed.
	Even when an outright cure is not possible, doctors are quite often able to control a patient's epilepsy completely using modern drug treatments. The importance of these clinical advances should not be underestimated. Some 400,000 people in the UK are currently afflicted with epilepsy in varying degrees of severity from a whole host of causes, including accidents, strokes and meningitis. Up to 1,000 people die suddenly from epilepsy every year, which is four times more than the numbers dying from AIDS.
	The devastation that epilepsy brings to people's lives and to families cannot be imagined until it is seen, yet only a minority of patients in this country have access to the specialised care that they need. This should not and need not happen. Patients become lost in a system that has let them down. Only a comparatively small number of GPs has a real and detailed understanding of epilepsy. That is not a criticism of GPs, who cannot be expected to know the ins and outs of every condition that they deal with, but it means either that the patient is not referred to a consultant at all or, when a referral is made, it is made in all good faith to someone without the necessary specialist expertise in epilepsy. The truth is that there is a woeful lack of co-ordination between doctors at primary and secondary care levels on this subject and, in general, a lack of professional awareness of epilepsy in many branches of secondary care, such as geriatrics, obstetrics and A&E. The fact of a patient having an epileptic seizure is often missed altogether and its implications therefore overlooked. All too frequently women with epilepsy who want to start a family receive no advice whatever from their GP or their ante-natal clinic about the risks and consequences of pregnancy or childbirth.
	These are deficiencies for which there is really no excuse. Many of us who are involved with epilepsy took heart when in 1996, under the previous government, the Clinical Standards Advisory Group was commissioned by the Department of Health to review existing epilepsy services throughout the United Kingdom and make recommendations for improvements. Its report is eagerly awaited. Like the noble Baroness, I should like to ask the Minister when he expects it to be published.
	One of the central features of the research programme was that, for the very first time in an exercise for government, it attempted to gain a perspective of epilepsy services from the point of view of patients. The aim was to try to identify how best to organise and configure the delivery of epilepsy services, what those services should be and how to optimise their quality--what one expert referred to as a "joined-up epilepsy service".
	Whatever the report's conclusions and recommendations, I believe that it is a certainty that the defects at primary and secondary care levels that I have just referred to will loom large in it. The key to any successful reorganisation of epilepsy services will be better communication between GPs, hospitals, the voluntary sector and tertiary referral centres--the aim being to ensure that each patient is looked after at the right level according to the severity and complexity of his condition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, emphasised. Not all epilepsy sufferers need to keep going back to hospital all the time; yet, as the noble Baroness said, many of those with mild forms of epilepsy do just this when they could be seen just as effectively by their GP. By contrast, a great many of those with active or severe epilepsy who should be seen regularly by a hospital go for months, and even years, without a hospital visit.
	The answer must be multi-faceted. One element must surely be to appoint at primary care group level a lead GP to act as a focal point for referrals and for the flow of information to patients and to ensure that there is proper communication with and from hospitals. At secondary care level there must be a powerful case to re-configure the outpatient service in each NHS region into dedicated epilepsy clinics. I see the role of epilepsy specialist nurses as crucial for the running of the service; indeed, more will need to be trained.
	I mention tertiary referrals in particular because it is clear with epilepsy, as elsewhere, that the system of out-of-area treatments introduced by the Government last year is not working as it should in that context. I was recently told about one quite typical example of a patient who had been seen by a consultant neurologist at his local hospital. On the strength of this, his GP decided that he should be referred to an epilepsy specialist at a tertiary referral centre. The PCG refused to agree this referral and insisted that the patient should be seen instead by a second consultant neurologist who practises in a nearby hospital with which the PCG happens to have a contract--a neurologist who has no specialist expertise in epilepsy whatever. In other words, there is a drive, no matter what, to keep the patient on the home patch purely to prevent the budget of the PCG from being eroded.
	At best, this roundabout procedure results in a delay in the patient being seen at tertiary referral level. At worst, the patient's problem remains unresolved and he is denied a tertiary referral altogether. Many patients now coming to the NSE say that they had to persist and persist to get the referral made. That cannot be right. Those 10 to 15 per cent of patients whose epilepsy is complex, either diagnostically or therapeutically, should have unfettered access to specialist centres of excellence, such as the Chalfont Centre or the National Hospital for Neurosurgery in Queen's Square.
	Other noble Lords mentioned the shortage of neurologists. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government recognise these shortages and what plans they have to address them. Does the Minister accept the recommendation put forward by the Association of British Neurologists that the numbers of consultant neurologists ought to be increased to 1 per 100,000 of the population?
	I should like to think that the financial outlay for any concerted programme of action need not be all that great and certainly not great in relation to the health gain in prospect for those many thousands of people in need. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I believe that much can be achieved by better co-ordination of what is already there. We need to remember that if epilepsy patients are excluded from the clinical process, they certainly cannot hope to break out of the exclusion that they suffer in almost every other sense--educational, social, vocational and marital. Epilepsy sufferers feel these disadvantages even more keenly than the condition itself. That is why a sensible programme of action will yield real dividends for the nation, not least those that we can measure in purely financial terms, far in excess of the cost. I hope that the Minister will be able to send us away with something to cheer about.

Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords who have thanked my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for raising this very important subject tonight. I know that my noble friend puts a lot of time and energy into trying to bring improvements to those who suffer in this very important area.
	The Government are well aware of the particular problems that epilepsy can bring to people and of the need for a well co-ordinated approach to service delivery. Epilepsy is the commonest serious neurological disorder--a sign of underlying disease in the brain--affecting more than 350,000 people or one in 200 of the United Kingdom population. At some time in their lives, between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of the population will have epilepsy.
	Epilepsy can affect people of any age. Many of those who develop epilepsy start having seizures during childhood, but the condition can develop at any age, even among older people. Many people with epilepsy will have their seizures controlled. One might, therefore, think that they lead a fairly normal life compared with other people with disabilities. However, despite its prevalence, some people with epilepsy face stigmatisation by society and some are still unaware of the full nature of the condition and the services available to them.
	As I said, most people with epilepsy have their seizures controlled. However, some 20 per cent of people with epilepsy have complex epilepsy and much time and effort may be needed to achieve seizure control; indeed, complete seizure control is never achieved by some people. People with complex epilepsy may well require specialist tertiary level assessment and treatment. Complex epilepsy is included in the comprehensive list of specialised services set out in the health circular on commissioning in the new NHS. This means that the NHS Executive's regional offices give special consideration to commissioning services for those people with complex epilepsy to ensure that there is proper access to such services for those who need them.
	Epilepsy can bring serious problems for the person with the condition and for his or her family. It places restrictions on the way in which such people live. Some people with epilepsy lead lives of social isolation and exclusion. People with active seizures find that not being able to drive in this modern, car-dependent world--as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, in her own circumstances--can place severe limits on their lifestyles and on their working potential. Children with epilepsy may need a good deal of care. As in all households caring for a sick child, this can cause potential difficulties for family relationships for the needs of one have to be balanced against those of the family as a whole.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, mentioned some of the problems that women suffering from epilepsy are confronted with. They often have hard choices to make about starting a family--choices which can sometimes be made even harder by the failure to give full information about the way pregnancy may affect them and the potential consequences for their children.
	However, we also know that people with epilepsy face very real problems in obtaining and retaining employment, whether or not driving skills are required. This is largely because of the long-standing misapprehensions about the way in which epilepsy affects people's capacity to work and the widespread false perception that all people with epilepsy have seizures every day. This means that people are reluctant to have people with epilepsy as work colleagues in case they have seizures.
	All these false perceptions lead to higher than average levels of unemployment for people with epilepsy compared with other people with disabilities. Helping people to find and keep work is a key priority for this Government. We have already introduced a Welfare to Work programme. This includes the New Deal for the Disabled. People with epilepsy will benefit from the New Deal and other proposals we are developing in this area, which I am sure will lead to better employment opportunities in the future.
	Because of all these complex factors it is clearly important to get epilepsy services right. For many years epilepsy was acknowledged to be one of the National Health Service's more neglected service delivery areas. I am pleased to say that real improvements have been made in recent years as the National Health Service has started to tackle some of these long-standing service delivery problems.
	There have been a number of specific initiatives aimed at improving the care and treatment of people with epilepsy. As well as the national guidance issued in 1995, the National Health Service has taken advantage of the help offered by the British Epilepsy Association to run regionally inspired seminars designed to help people devise local service improvement programmes. These seminars--usually chaired by the regional chair--have led to service delivery improvements on the ground as gaps in services have been identified and plugged.
	A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the introduction of specialist nurses into epilepsy. There has been a real improvement in this area, particularly in the development of better care pathways, in talking to potential employers of people with epilepsy and in giving direct information and advice to patients and carers. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, emphasised that aspect, as did other noble Lords. Many of the earlier problems in epilepsy care were associated with the lack of good, readily understandable patient and carer information. With some support from government, the epilepsy voluntary organisations--especially the British Epilepsy Association--have been filling these long-standing information deficits for patients.
	More recent work includes the service development kit put together by the Epilepsy Task Force, which gives comprehensive advice on the commissioning and provision of services, including service specifications, audit and briefing on potential service models. It also includes material on the health economic case for good epilepsy services.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the role the Government are playing in improving care for people with epilepsy. There is a major Department of Health funded initiative aimed at discovering more about sudden death epilepsy. I trust that improvements will be made in that area as a result of that initiative.
	My colleague, John Hutton, signed the foreword to the British Epilepsy Association's handbook Epilepsy Care: Making It Happen only last year. This is a useful tool kit for developing effective epilepsy services. In his foreword John Hutton stated that the Government want to see these services improve across the National Health Service as a whole and that we have an opportunity now to focus on the needs of people with epilepsy.
	A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Clinical Standards Advisory Group and have asked about the date of publication of its report on epilepsy services. This has been received but has not yet been published by the Government. This is one of four final reports produced by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group which await publication. The remit of the group has now been subsumed into the work of the Commission for Health Improvement.
	The report contains some excellent research material which looks at epilepsy from the patient's viewpoint in depth for the first time and draws a number of conclusions about the present state of services as well as making a number of recommendations for change. We are still considering the report and hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the number of neurologists. I am not in a position to give him the relevant figures at the moment but I shall, of course, write to him on that issue.
	I conclude by saying that the findings of the CSAG report will prove most helpful when Department of Health officials meet representatives of the Joint Epilepsy Council shortly to take stock of recent service developments and recent medical research and to discuss ways of taking work forward in this area.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, our approach to epilepsy has improved in recent years but there is still a long way to go. We are doing better in this area but we are perhaps not the best. However, I am sure that with the commitment that is demonstrated in your Lordships' House we shall get there soon. If there are points that I have not responded to, I shall reply in writing.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten to nine.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.47 to 8.50 p.m.]

Local Government Bill [H.L.]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 10.

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 is a simple probing amendment. On reflection, when I looked at Clause 10(4), I noticed that the executive is referred to in this Part as,
	"a mayor and council manager executive".
	In most other parts of the world where there is an elected mayor, the elected mayor is the elected mayor and the council manager and does the whole job. Very often in the United States there may be a relatively small council which appoints a council manager to run its business affairs. The difficulty is that in both those descriptions the elected mayor and the council manager are doing the same job.
	I am not quite certain therefore what the division of responsibilities would be under subsection (4) if the elected mayor, who is elected to run the council--and, therefore, one might have thought, would be its manager--appointed a manager to do that for him. If he did that, I cannot understand why one would need an elected mayor in any event; it seems to me that the council could appoint a manager if that is what it so wished.
	I thought that the solution to the problem would be to move the amendment and to find out what the Minister has to say about it. That may help me to make up my mind. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is seeking clarification rather than seeking to press his amendment. It may well be that this is the least well understood form of the structures--and I suspect that that is also the case outside the House. We are anxious that we do not delete any form of executive structure which is contained in the Bill at the moment.
	It is quite common in a number of other countries to have an elected mayor and an appointed manager. I suspect that the noble Lord is thinking more of the North American pattern, where the mayor effectively acts as the chief executive. The pattern here is designed to achieve a clear separation between policy development, which would be a matter for the council and for the mayor, and the day-to-day implementation of policy, which would be a matter for the council manager and for the officer corps. The mayor would provide the political leadership; the council manager would implement agreed council policy, guided by that political leadership.
	When the Joint Committee considered this potential option, it felt that an arrangement involving a council manager might be more appropriate for rural areas and for areas where there were usually hung councils. In those circumstances, the relationship between the mayor, the council manager and the council would be slightly different from other areas where there was a clear political majority. That option, which is more equivalent to certain continental structures, should be provided in the Bill. In the view of the Joint Committee, at least, it is probably more appropriate for the rural and less urban areas. That may be the reason that it has not been taken up as a front runner among the structures of local government.
	With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am not sure whether it is my amendment, the Minister's explanation or something completely divorced from the proceedings which is causing so much hilarity. In any event, the Minister will be glad to hear that I shall study his explanation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 5, line 37, at end insert--
	("( ) It may take such form as the local authority considers, after it has taken reasonable steps to consult local government electors and other interested persons in the authority's area, will--
	(a) enhance decision-making,
	(b) meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency, and
	(c) be appropriate to local circumstances.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 seeks to outline what one might call the "fourth option". On a similar amendment at a previous stage, the Minister said that if the objective of the option was greater diversity, then it did not achieve it. This amendment is not so much about diversity as about getting back to basics, although it seeks to set out the framework which we believe will be appropriate for a further option.
	This is a variation on the amendment I moved at the earlier stage. It provides that executive arrangements as adopted through regulations may take the form that the local authority itself considers appropriate, and it may only adopt that form after it has consulted its electors. It will enhance decision making, meet the principles of transparency, accountability and efficiency and be appropriate to local circumstances. The reference to local circumstances is important.
	On the last group of amendments the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, said that we need to know how the public can express a view. That is a very fair point. This amendment would achieve that objective, or certainly something might be built on it. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated in an earlier debate, the three categories of executive arrangements already made available in the Bill allow for a fairly wide diversity of choice. They do so by setting out the basic framework for each option to ensure that the new structure has a clear, separate, transparent and accountable executive responsible for most of a council's functions. I appreciate that the amendment does not explicitly seek to make executive arrangements voluntary--which was the subject of a previous debate--but it does provide a broader discretion than we are prepared to accept, in that councils themselves could devise a form of executive that approximates very closely to the status quo should they so wish.
	It is clear that any such arrangements would require further provision and modification to other enactments, but it is not clear how that would be achieved. In a few minutes we shall come to the question of the power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to define further forms of executive. If a council has a clear proposal for a further form of executive which meets the aims of enhanced efficiency, transparency and accountability, we should use that power to establish an alternative model. However, this proposal is somewhat more open-ended. We should not be convinced that the proposal is not a way of allowing councils effectively to make a few minor modifications to their current committee structure rather than to move wholeheartedly to an executive structure. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, sadly, the Minister confirms what we have all been suggesting: that even if the criteria spelled out are met, the central government model is to be followed. I am sad. I accept that the Government are quite set on the matter, but it is sad that they have not yet moved towards us in any way. There is still time to work out how we can ensure the meeting of criteria which are agreed on all sides to be important. A model which has been consulted on locally and has obtained local approval cannot be put in place through some automatic procedure, but it is still a matter--not even for the Secretary of State to approve on a particular basis but to meet a form which the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 23 seeks to leave out paragraph (a) of Clause 10(6), which provides that regulations may provide for a form of executive, with each member directly elected to a specified cabinet post.
	I am still unclear as to why subsection (6) is necessary at all. We are back to the old argument that the executive may take a form to be prescribed in regulations which,
	"may, in particular, provide for",
	some--but it must be by definition not all--of the possible forms. Since the provision does not attempt to spell out all the forms, why is it necessary or appropriate to spell out only those?
	I have particular concerns about that model which I expressed in Committee. The Minister stressed that the Government have no clear plans about the particular form of the executive, but they want to ensure that no "potentially valid"--those are the words he used--form of executive should be closed off. That of course begs the question of how one interprets the words "potentially valid". We have a particular difficulty about directly elected cabinet members when they are elected to particular posts. I simply do not see how it is practicable at local level to apply that kind of model.
	Over dinner I was talking to my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer about how few people we have come across, particularly in the smaller authorities, who have any enthusiasm for doing the job themselves. To elect an individual who wants to be mayor, who will set out his stall and go for it knowing that it is a full time job is one matter; but if one is to have a directly elected cabinet where a number of individuals are asked to put themselves forward for a major job in the local authority, which may or may not be fulfilling but certainly requires them as individuals to take important decisions about the direction in which their lives and careers will go, I do not believe that the people are likely to be available. If there are direct elections to individual cabinet posts, how does one swap around? Must one keep having by-elections if people find that they simply cannot juggle their lives as they believed they might be able to do?
	I do not like the model, but more particularly I want to ask why subsection (6) is necessary at all. It is restrictive. If subsection (5) means anything, must we have subsection (6)? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, subsection (6) is in the Bill primarily to ensure a degree of flexibility. The noble Baroness's amendment would in fact restrict that flexibility. The reason for Clause 10(6) as a whole is to make it clear that there may well be options on which the Government do not have any fixed view as to the form they take. It is there to ensure that there is the widest scope to provide for forms of executive which may be requested by local authorities--or, indeed, by others--and which the Secretary of State may be convinced meet the aims of the Bill; namely, efficiency, transparency and accountability. By providing such scope it gives a range of possibilities which may potentially fall under it.
	The Government have put forward subsections (2) to (4) which provide for three forms of executive. We believe that each of those forms already contains a fairly wide range of diversity of arrangements in practice which may apply to different kinds of authorities. We believe also--this is the point to which I was in a sense alluding in our earlier debate--that we must have the ability to provide for further forms of executive should they seem to be appropriate at some point in the future. The power exists in Clause 10(5), but the provision for its scope is in Clause 10(6). The noble Baroness's amendment would limit it.
	The purpose of Clause 10(6) is to avoid any doubt about our ability to use the power to provide a form of executive which had more than one person directly elected to it and about the way in which the members of the executive would be elected and whether they could be elected to specific posts. The noble Baroness has indicated that she does not consider that direct elections to specified posts would be desirable. There are of course arguments in that direction. It could limit future flexibility. The Government have no plans to introduce such a structure or to impose such an arrangement.
	It may well be that certain local authorities would find such an executive desirable at some future stage. Internationally, there is a strong tradition, particularly in North America, for direct elections to many public posts. Noble Lords may have different views as to whether that is a system we would wish to import here. Nevertheless, it is a system which has to a large extent stood the test of time in America and one which could be adopted here in some form. The Government are looking at all potential alternatives which may be produced in the future which have the executive there and meet the broad objectives but which are different from the ones currently prescribed on the face of the Bill.
	It is also true that some local authorities might wish to have a directly elected cabinet without specifying what posts the cabinet members would occupy. Clause 10(6)(b) ensures that the power in Clause 10(5) is wide enough to cover that contingency as well. Therefore, it provides for quite a range of flexibility. The noble Baroness asked how one would move people from one place to another. That model allows for that.
	To delete part of what is proposed restricts that flexibility. The Government would like to see as much flexibility as possible in the scope for adopting genuine executive structures and believe that the categories that will be made available on the face of the Bill of themselves provide a wide range. The Government would be prepared to go further. That is why there is the power by regulation to make further categories of executive arrangements available. The Government are trying to ensure in this context that the potential range is as wide as possible because they recognise that as councils gain experience of the various models, on the basis of that experience they may want to identify other structures which they may feel are more appropriate to them. When that happens the Government want to be certain that they can make available new categories which prove to be worthwhile and valuable, and not to exclude international analogues which may have worked in other countries.
	I should point out that the regulations under Clause 10(5) would be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The House would then have an opportunity to debate further any order the Secretary of State was minded to make on this issue in the future. Therefore, there would be another point at which parliamentary scrutiny could intervene. It would not entirely be a matter for the Secretary of State alone.
	I understand the concern of the noble Baroness that all this should be decided by local authorities and that the Secretary of State should simply rubberstamp any option they come up with. However, we think that certain criteria have to be made. Therefore the regulations and the judgment of the Secretary of State have to be able to ensure that those structures meet the broad objectives of efficiency, transparency and accountability. That is provided for, as is the right of Parliament to have a say on it. I hope that that demonstrates our flexibility on executive structures, which, although not as wide as was contended in the previous debate, are fairly broad.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wish to be quite clear. The Minister talks about being flexible and open-minded and so on. Would not the most flexible arrangement be to include Clause 10(5) and not to include Clause 10(6)? On the one hand he appears to say that the possibilities within what can be termed executive arrangements are limitless; on the other hand he says it is important to have Clause 10(6) because it sets out the other models. It appears to me that the most flexible approach would be not to include subsection (6) at all. Can the Minister assist me?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my contention on flexibility did not quite reach the point of being limitless. There are limits and there are criteria to the scope. Those are set out in Clause 10(6). I would not want noble Lords to think we are completely open-ended in our views here. We do need to limit the scope to meeting the criteria and to allowing the kind of structures which the noble Baroness did seem to take objection to. My contention is that although she may find Clause 10(6) as a whole more restrictive than limitless, her amendment will actually make it more limited, not less.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I take the point on my amendment. I am assuming that Clause 10(6) restricts Clause 10(5). I should perhaps have framed my question to the Minister: is Clause 10(6) exclusive? In other words, can there be models which do not fall within Clause 10(6)? The Minister talked about Clause 10(6) as being the criteria. They are the models rather than criteria in the sense of principles.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, Clause 10(6) states,
	"may, in particular, provide".
	Those models suggest potential scope but not exclusive scope.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is helpful that the Minister has said that they are not exclusive. I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 6, line 6, at end insert--
	("( ) The authority may determine the title to be used for the position of mayor elected under this Act.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, this amendment would introduce a new subsection between subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 10. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to determine the title of the directly elected person always described in the Bill as the "mayor". The amendment was discussed at the Committee stage on 25th January. It was introduced by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in a short debate which ended at 11 p.m. On that occasion everyone was extremely brief. I shall try not to make that an excuse for speaking at length today.
	The main point of the amendment is to deal with the situation where there already is a mayor of a local authority who is a local councillor elected by the council to chair the council and to be the non-party representative of the council at a wide range of more or less formal occasions within and outside the local authority. Some observers have suggested that the Government do not seem to understand or have any sympathy with the extremely useful social and community role, as a non-party representative of the council, that such mayors and, for that matter, the chairman or chairs of other local authorities perform. We have had a good deal of anecdotal self-explanation today. I shall merely say that I am one of many chairs of local authorities who have found the role extremely interesting and have also been aware of the interest which other people have in the presence of the representative of the county council at their celebration or opening ceremonies. The people whom the chair or, in the case of this amendment, the mayor contacts in the course of the mayoral year--be they from local authority organisations or from the voluntary sector--are genuinely pleased to have that presence. That role brings together people in the community.
	When responding to the amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, said that in a case where the local authority--probably a borough--which already had a traditional mayor moved to the system of a directly elected mayor, the,
	"Government would either need to find a different title for the elected mayor or let local authorities choose a variety of titles for that figure".--[Official Report, 25/1/2000; col.1536.]
	She added that the Government preferred the clear rule that if there is an elected mayor, it is that figure who is known as the mayor, leaving the chairman or chair of the local authority to be known by that title rather than the traditional title.
	At this point I remind the House that the traditional title of mayor may be a recent one, dating back only to the reform of local government in the 1970s, but it may be a very ancient one as well, one which few local authorities will want to abandon. In any case, the approach that was expressed by the Minister was quite different from ours. We want not the Government but local authorities to be able to determine the title of their elected executive person or their directly elected mayor. I do not want to use the word "mayor" because I want to put the whole character of the name into question. I prefer to use the term "the elected executive". For some local authorities, "executive leader" might be a more suitable style. That is what used to exist in local authorities where there was a clear majority government. The mayor or chairman was the non-party representative of the council and the leader of the council was the political leader of the council. For some people the name "executive leader" might be more suitable. That would enable local authorities to retain their mayoral title if that was precious to them. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, although I have some sympathy with the difficulty indicated by the noble Baroness, there is a dilemma. It may well be true that people appreciate the non-political nature of the mayor and the presence of the traditional mayor, be it a borough mayor, city mayor or lord mayor, as a ceremonial personage. However, when one asks them about local government, the reason people like the idea of elected mayors, at least at first sight, is that they want someone who has clear executive power. I suspect that, among the population as a whole, most people who are not familiar with local government assume that a mayor does have executive power in some sense. They think of a mayor more in the American or French style than in the British style.
	Certainly, if we are to move to a system where directly elected mayors are the executive power, and the title "mayor" is the best way of epitomising that, it is difficult to say that the directly elected person should not be designated "mayor". In those situations where we do move down that road and there is an existing role in the same authority--as a local authority function as distinct from, for example, a charter function--or there is a pre-existing ceremonial mayor, the title would need to be that of mayor or something like it to distinguish those people from the mayor who has statutory functions under this executive structure.
	The Government did give some thought to whether "mayor" was the correct title. In the end, we settled for it because it was the obvious choice--indeed almost the only choice. It is used in local government all over the English-speaking world, and similar titles exist in the French-speaking and Spanish-speaking world. I suppose that "Bu rgermeister" is not very different either. In most European languages the title "mayor" has a ring about it. In France, the United States and New Zealand, for example, mayors have similar functions to those envisaged in the Bill for the elected mayor here. If we did not call that person the mayor, we should have to think of some alternative title with a similar ring to it. It has been suggested to me, for example, that "governor" could apply in the counties. In the south of England, "governor" would not convey quite the right message--prestigious though it may be in the United States. No other title has been suggested. The noble Baroness suggested "elected leader". That does not have the right ring about it.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My suggestion was "executive leader".

Lord Whitty: "Executive leader" likewise, my Lords, does not have the same resonance as "mayor".
	If your Lordships accept even three-quarters of my argument--as I am sure you will--I accept that that leaves a problem in relation to ceremonial mayors, if I may so call them. We shall have to find a way--or local authorities may find different ways--of describing the continuing role in those communities. But that seems to me a secondary issue. One has to accept that for those who are lining up to be mayor in the next three or four years it may not be academic. However, it is a secondary issue in terms of the reform of local government that we are trying to put through and the importance of the role of elected mayors in those authorities that choose that system.
	I believe that we should stick with the title "mayor". We should accept that an important job is done by ceremonial mayors but that we must find a description which may incorporate the title "mayor" but which will be distinct from the statutory role of mayor under these models. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter further.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister is, as always, optimistic when he says that he is certain that we shall accept at least three-quarters of his argument. He began by referring to what people think. Most people do not think about local government, or indeed any government, most of the time. But when they need to know how it works, they are usually pretty canny at finding out. They have no difficulty in distinguishing between the mayor of a borough or city and other people in that borough or city.
	The noble Lord referred to lord mayors, whose office is, I believe, governed by charter or statute. It is doubtful that one could ever get rid of that title without a great deal of effort. Perhaps the law which governs the foundation of mayoralties is part of the body of statutes which the Government intend to knock for six in the context of this particular piece of legislation and the powers contained within it. The issue is a secondary one, in the sense that nobody thought about it until the process of legislation began. I suspect that it will be one of those tiresome issues that plague the Minister because insufficient attention has been paid to the obvious problem of what to do with existing mayoralties. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 6, line 8, at end insert--
	("( ) A member of the authority may attend and speak at meetings of the executive as deputy or substitute for a member of the executive by whom the deputy or substitute is appointed but may not vote.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 takes us back to deputies and substitutes. My amendment provides that members of the executive may have deputies or substitutes but they may not vote. I raised this issue at Committee stage when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said that because the Government were concerned to avoid conflicts of interest no deputation or substitution had been allowed. While this amendment would not allow the deputy to vote, it would allow for practicalities: for example, if a member of the cabinet was abroad or ill or, in the interim period before a by-election--if that was how matters proceeded--in the event of resignation or death.
	I regard this as an entirely practical matter which would not do any harm to transparency or accountability. I said in relation to an earlier amendment that academics, among others, had analysed and criticised--I use that term in a particular way--the Government's proposals. One particularly well known academic commented that the arguments about transparency and accountability did not appear to create problems at national level when another Minister acted in the absence of the Cabinet Minister. The Minister and the noble Baroness are perhaps in a far better position than I am to comment on that, but I believe it to be a fair point. Executive members are likely to carry a heavy load. I believe that to prevent them from being supported by deputies in the rather modest manner that I propose will not assist them in carrying out their functions. I beg to move.

Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the amendment. Perhaps I may illustrate the point in a slightly different way. As I am not currently on the Front Bench I draw attention to my own local authority, to which I referred during Second Reading. In Sutton we have 46 Liberal Democrat, five Labour and five Conservative councillors. We have restructured the council to separate the executive and scrutiny functions. We have a 10-member cabinet, although we prefer to call it a strategy committee. Eight of its members are Liberal Democrats; one is Labour and one is Conservative. That is done with all-party agreement. That model and the Government's alternatives were put out to public consultation last summer. The Local Government Association told us that we received what was, at least at that stage, the largest public response that anyone had had. Eighty per cent of the public who responded supported our model, which has been working very well since September. At present we allow substitutes. However, if the Bill is passed, and the regulations are implemented, we shall not be able to do so.
	If one of the eight members of the majority party is not present, of course he is missed; he makes a valuable contribution. But it is not the end of the world; there will be seven others of us there. However, as we have decided to adopt an all-party model, supported by all parties and the public in our borough, if one of the opposition members is not present, the voice of the opposition is denied to us.
	In Committee, the Minister's reply was clear: we want to separate the executive and scrutiny functions. I understand that. In this amendment, we are providing for someone to attend and to speak--in the instance I cite, to give the opposition view--but not to have a vote. In other words, he does not share directly in the decision of the executive. It may happen occasionally that the voice he gives may not be entirely supportive of the majority of the executive. But we believe that it is an important function. Unless deputies or substitutes are allowed to attend and speak, under our model--and I am sure Sutton is not the only place where it occurs--we shall, in effect, deny the opposition party the right to put its view while the cabinet, the executive, considers what it wishes to do.
	The opposition party will have later opportunities. It will be able to raise the issue in full council when all 56 of us can have a grand debate. That is not the same. The role that the opposition plays in the executive is valuable. The model has been in place since September, and it works well. We have met fortnightly; it will be every three weeks. Inevitably, there will be times when one of the opposition members cannot attend. Indeed, one member from the Labour Party is working hard to become a member of the assembly; and I am sure working hard for the official Labour candidate. Very occasionally, for some strange reason, he sees that as a higher priority than attending the fortnightly executive meeting. I am sure he will learn the error of his ways soon enough. However, if the Bill were enacted now, the Labour Party would be denied the voice which at Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, assured me it would continue to have for as long as it wished.
	I hope that the Minister will see the good intent underlying the amendment and will either accept it or assure us that, once the Bill is enacted and the regulations in place, appointed substitutes will still be able to attend and speak at meetings of the executive, although they will not have a vote.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I begin with the issue relating to the role of Ministers on the Government Front Bench. Although there may have been occasions when the combination of noble Lords' interests in this Bill and on potential aspects of the Learning and Skills Bill led to a degree of repetition, as a member of the executive neither the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, nor I were able to go away leaving noble Lords speaking at length on specific matters while Members from the Back Benches sat on the Front Bench. That is the difference. As members of the executive, we have the pleasure of sitting on the Front Bench and hearing all the points of view put forward by noble Lords, sometimes with repetition to add emphasis to their point of view.
	Amendment No. 26, dealing with deputising or substituting, is in conflict with our view about the nature of the executive member and the overview and scrutiny committee role. We believe that the position should be clear. Whether the proposed deputy would have a vote, frankly, misses the point. We believe that the clear lines of responsibility are important in this context.
	However, having said that, I must emphasise that we believe that it should not be seen as providing for a total separation in terms of the policy implemented by the local authority. The executive will wish to take advice from other councillors and they will all come together to determine the policy of the authority. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, in giving his example, saw the scrutiny role always occurring after the event and there being no contact with the executive role. I suspect that with his many years' experience in local government, the noble Lord is well aware of the position taken by minority groups on key policy issues.
	We believe that it is important to avoid the possibility of conflicts of interest. We do not see the scrutiny role as being subordinate but see it as being complementary. Therefore, we believe that people's clear view of where the executive decision and responsibility lie would be blurred and damaged by the process which the noble Baroness seeks to introduce in the amendment. I hope that she feels able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the logic of the position that the Minister has expounded--that scrutiny is not confined to being after the event--leads to asking why there is a need for an executive. The Minister seemed to be saying that the full council could do the job.
	My noble friend illustrated very well the problems inherent in the restriction. We shall not convince the Government, but I hope that as time goes on and the difficulties become apparent it will be possible to find a way to allow the executives to work practically by adjusting regulations.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is open to the executive to invite anyone to speak at its meetings? The noble Lord, Lord Tope, were he to be unaware of the Conservative or Labour Party policy on any issue, would be able to invite someone to come along and speak, but he or she would not be a member.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am aware of that, but it is different from someone coming along to deputise for a particular member. However, I accept that we shall make no progress, as we would see it, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 [Joint exercise of functions]:

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 11, line 40, leave out (", is") and insert ("or a committee of the authority or specified member or members of the authority, is or are").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 27 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. They seek to explore and create flexibility in the functions exercised by joint committees between two different local authorities. I thank the Minister for his letter of 28th January in which he went into considerable detail in Annex F about the joint arrangements and how they might work.
	While most of his letter was useful, Annex F raised a number of questions which it is necessary to clarify. Joint arrangements between a county and unitary councils or county and district councils are the only way such bodies can work together to create best value. That is crucial at county and district level, but it applies to small unitary authorities within large county areas because of the mish-mash of arrangements left after the local government review.
	Annex F, with the joint arrangements outlined, made it clear that the Government have in mind an arrangement whereby a county council working with a district council will need to choose whether such a joint committee will exercise executive or non-executive functions. If it were to exercise executive decisions and functions, it should consist only of executive members and political balance would not be required. The difficulty with that first model is that there may be no members of the executive of the county council who are resident in that district's area.
	Although the Government may not feel that that matters, it is quite clear that when we come to what I shall call "model 2", which is where the joint committee might exercise non-executive decisions, they specify that members must be from the electoral divisions or wards which are wholly or partly within the area in question. Therefore, they have recognised that it is important that in any joint committee local members who are elected to that part of the county are those who exercise their representational role. Therefore, even if executive decisions are being undertaken, it is not desirable that there should be such a clear division.
	For an individual authority, a clear line can be drawn between executive and non-executive functions. A problem arises when we move to joint committees. I take as an example waste collection and disposal, which is perhaps the function that sits the worst, being divided between district and county. I believe that some of the time a joint committee will need to implement policy decisions, which I consider to be an executive function. Some of the time it will have to scrutinise how that is working. I believe that a joint committee could make vast progress in implementing ways of collecting waste that would lead to far less of it needing to be disposed of. After all, that is one area in which everyone struggles, both nationally and locally; that is, how to reduce the vast mountain of waste. That is the kind of area in which a joint committee could be very effective, and there are many others.
	The Government have conceded that within an area committee--I refer now to an area committee which belongs to only one authority--there is no reason, as the Minister states in his Annex E, why the same area committee cannot discharge both the executive and non-executive functions delegated to it. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: could that same arrangement not apply to the joint arrangements between, say, county and district? I believe that in order for them to implement their functions in the best way and in the best interests of residents, they will need sometimes to be able to address both those areas.
	I turn to the question as to whether the committees should be politically balanced. When one looks at two different local authorities, the government requirement that they should be politically balanced if they are to address non-executive decisions is very difficult. Let us suppose that the county council, which, after all, is elected in a different electoral cycle, is composed of almost entirely one party--for the sake of argument, Liberal Democrat. The district members who were elected two years previously might be virtually all Conservative or all Labour members. To achieve political balance, all the members from one authority will be from one party and all the members of another party will represent the second authority. First, I do not believe that that is a recipe for happy working. It would be better to have a party split by authority: perhaps the county members would consist of two Conservative, two Liberal Democrat and two Labour members, with the district similarly split. I do not believe that having sharp divisions will encourage joint arrangement working.
	Further, I ask how much consultation has been carried out. That question came to the top of my mind when I finished reading Annex F and struggled with the difficulties in it about how partnership arrangements between counties and districts currently operate. How do the people who drafted the current arrangements and who, helpfully, have written Annex F come to their conclusions? Not many partnerships work successfully.
	However, I believe that before the Government finally make up their mind as to what would be the correct model or models and how much flexibility is required, it would be most useful to go back to the councils which operate joint arrangements and explore exactly how they work and how they would or would not work if the current restrictive drafting, which our amendments seek to make more flexible, affected such partnership working. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, which these amendments seek to probe. However, I am afraid that on this matter we have a difference of opinion and are unable to accept the amendments.
	The fundamental principle which underpins the proposals in Part II of the Bill is that of transparency and accountability. Local people and all others who have dealings with a local authority need and have a right to know who is responsible for the decisions which affect them.
	A separate executive, and in particular a mayor, will ensure that there is clear accountability for executive functions. People will know who is responsible. It is important to stress that those changes apply only where the joint committee is to have executive functions. The kind of example given by the noble Baroness, where there is a non-executive functioning joint committee would not be affected by the changes. The detailed arrangements for joint committees are, of course, matters for regulations under Clause 18, drafts of which we published in January to inform this debate and for wider consultation. We believe that joint arrangements in respect of executive functions should be joint arrangements between the executives of the two authorities in question.
	To allow the council to determine that some executive functions must be delegated to a joint committee, possibly against the wishes of the executive, and to allow that committee to have members who are not members of the executive would cloud the principle of accountability which we seek to enhance and cut across the principles which underpin this legislation.
	Our policy is that it should be for the executive to decide whether executive functions may be the subject of joint arrangements. It should be for the executive to decide the membership of any joint committee discharging those executive functions. The membership of such a joint committee should be drawn from the executive. That will ensure clear accountability and responsibility for executive functions.
	There would, of course, be nothing to prevent an authority forming a joint committee with another authority on a non-executive function basis. There would be nothing to prevent them offering advice to the executive or to prevent them from co-opting other councillors onto such joint committees in an advisory capacity alone.
	Perhaps it would help the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to recall that these matters are for regulations. We have published a draft of those regulations for consultation and we will consider carefully all the responses.
	We accept that there are similar issues with area committees. However, our experience is that there is not normally extensive delegation of functions to area committees over and above functions which are local matters and do not have an impact beyond the area in question.
	We believe that the powers in Clause 18 do not need amendment to enable provision with the effect the noble Baroness seeks. Our policy is not to make such provision. We feel, therefore, that the amendments are unnecessary.
	I repeat and stress that such joint arrangements and provision will be effected only if there is executive function as part of the role of such committees. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say whether the expenditure of a limited amount of money within policy guidelines is an executive or a non-executive function? Many joint committees make such decisions and it works; that is, action is taken involving small amounts of expenditure.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my consideration of this matter is that it depends on what the money is spent. It may be helpful for me to write to the noble Baroness. If I were to await further inspiration from the depths of my memory, I might detain noble Lords for too long.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that this may be an example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, would put it, of thinking rather than considering.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and accept that much of what I referred to will be in draft regulations. However, I should like some reassurance from her that before the regulations become anything more than draft, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will check once again with places that are working successfully in partnership to ensure that the draft does not inhibit that working.
	I am concerned that authorities will not be able to make executive decisions, particularly in the geographically large counties, save by perhaps shipping in executive members from the other end of the county, which may be 40 miles away. That is not joint working within a district. If the Minister can give me that reassurance--I know her department is keen for these partnerships to succeed--I shall feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I give the noble Baroness the assurance that we shall consider extremely carefully the points that she raised.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Overview and scrutiny committees]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 30:
	Page 12, line 40, at end insert--
	("( ) Unless the matter is certified by the authority's monitoring officer to be urgent, no decision by a local authority under its executive arrangements shall be implemented within less than five working days after the decision.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
	Clause 19, which deals with the overview and scrutiny committees, is much broader than the original version. It was fleshed out by the Government's amendment in Committee. It makes clear that the overview and scrutiny committees have a forward-looking role as well as one which looks backward. However, Clause 19 also provides that there is a right of call-in when a decision by the executive has not been implemented. By that I mean a right to require that a decision be reconsidered or considered in a different way. Clause 19(3) gives the committee those powers but says,
	"to review or scrutinise a decision made but not implemented".
	It is important that the executive of any authority, while it should be able to take and implement urgent decisions, should not be allowed to avoid the proper exercise of an overview and scrutiny committee by bulldozing through the implementation of its decisions. I therefore provided in the amendment that no decision taken by the authority under executive arrangements should be implemented within less than five working days after the decision, unless the matter is certified to be urgent by the authority's monitoring officer. I accept that there may be occasions when swift implementation is important. I think that is unlikely to be the general position, but it is right that an executive should not be able to avoid proper scrutiny and avoid proper use of powers by its own overview and scrutiny committee by rushing to implementation. I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 is grouped with this amendment. It deals with a different aspect of a parallel problem and is more concerned with the rights and responsibilities of overview and scrutiny committees and members of those committees.
	The amendment would mean that a member of a relevant overview and scrutiny committee could hold up a decision by a member of the executive or the executive itself, because it should be remembered that the executive has power to delegate to a committee of the executive or to an individual member of the executive.
	It is a matter of regret that too often in local government we have seen authorities or members of authorities abuse their position, and improper procedures have been used for personal gain.
	The situation that I envisage may be highly unlikely and ought never to happen--but it is our business to envisage unlikely events. It is where a member of the executive, under delegated authority from the executive, lets a contract outwith the normal approval procedures for personal gain. Under the existing remit of the Bill it would be possible for an individual member to do that. It is true that he would be supervised by officers, and one could assume that that is a sufficient safeguard, but it might not be sufficient to prevent impropriety. However, I have asked myself this. Suppose an observant member of an overview and scrutiny committee was on the ball. Should he not have the right to do something about the situation and prevent the problem from arising? I decided that he should have that right.
	I am prepared to accept that the amendment may not be perfectly worded to meet the situation that I have suggested and that we would need to improve upon it, but the principle is a correct one. The overview and scrutiny committees should have power to call in a decision before it is implemented if necessary. This is not a power that would enable one member alone to do that because he would have to get a second opinion and go to the chairman of his committee. The chairman would have to agree that the case he was presenting for the decision to be called in was a proper and appropriate one. That would provide a safeguard in a situation where personal angst or a personal grudge could prevent proper action.
	Even if the Minister cannot agree to accept this amendment, I hope that she will at least consider its implications. Perhaps she will think about the question and bring forward a more appropriate solution. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are unable to support Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 because, as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have acknowledged, both would delay the implementation of decisions by the executive. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would delay implementation by five days unless a decision was certified as urgent by the monitoring officer, presumably to allow the overview and scrutiny committee time to call in the decision. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would allow a member of an overview and scrutiny committee, with the support of the chair, to delay implementation of any decision until the committee had considered it.
	We agree with noble Lords that it is important that members of the overview and scrutiny committees should be able to discuss any action by the executive. As amended in Committee, Clause 19 gives the overview and scrutiny committees power to call in executive decisions. However, we do not wish to be prescriptive about how this should work. It should be up to local choice. If we are to have more efficient decision-making, we do not want a situation where every decision could be blocked by a disgruntled minority for purely political reasons.
	As noble Lords will recognise, in some cases urgency is vital; for example, instructing an officer to remove a child from a dangerous situation. This should not be delayed while the views of the monitoring officer are sought to confirm that it is a matter of urgency. At the other extreme, sometimes decisions taken by the executive will simply require officers to work out proposals for future policy consideration. Although it would rarely do any harm, it does not seem sensible that such decisions should always be subject to the five-day delay. We also believe that the monitoring officer, who has the power of providing advice on vires and maladministration, should not be given the task of determining the urgency of decisions; indeed, we believe that that would change his or her role.
	However, I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have noticed that these amendments appear to reflect some of the suggestions that we have included in draft guidance. We suggested that only two councillors might be needed to ask an overview and scrutiny committee to look at a decision and that they have only five working days in which to do so in order to maintain effective and efficient decision-making. We also suggested that councils need to take a sensible view on which type of decision they allow to be called in. I should stress that these were suggestions. We believe that the details should be a matter for local determination and choice and not prescribed in the Bill.
	Therefore, although we understand and appreciate some of the points made, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments in the light of the fact that local authorities may make their own judgments within the framework of guidance.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I may be doing the Minister and her department a disservice, but, when we are told that certain details must be a matter for "local choice", I begin to wonder whether they are the more difficult matters. I accept that the situation I outlined is not as broad ranging as one might need, but it is up to us to tackle the issues. The Minister says that these are matters for local choice. But how can that be? One has to look at existing constraints which will, presumably, translate into procedural standing orders, and so on. Something along the lines of what I proposed should be up there with the other provisions that will inform those standing orders.
	The example the noble Baroness gave of a child being taken into care leaves me with more questions because it suggests that it will not be possible to delegate such decisions to officers. Is the noble Baroness saying that a decision such as that of taking a child into care would be led by an officer and that one has to wait for a meeting of the executive? I am not clear how that kind of decision lies vis-a-vis executive arrangements.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in the normal course of events it would quite clearly be a matter of judgment for a professional officer in a social services department. However, there could be exceptional circumstances in which a decision had to be taken because something was unforeseeably outwith the normal policy guidance and the normal terms of reference.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I understand that. It seems to me that the arrangements for an overview and scrutiny committee to intervene should take account of the need for an exceptionally urgent arrangement. My provision about a monitoring officer's involvement may not be correct, but I do not think that it is too far wrong either. Consideration on our part and on the part of practitioners of precisely how this will work in practice will be well worth undertaking.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it may be helpful if I give the noble Baroness an example without going into enough detail for anyone to be able to identify the individual concerned. Prior to the previous administration taking office and constraining the roles of chairs of committees, a chair of a committee could be approached as regards a particular policy which was generally opposed to that of the authority. I refer to the case of a child who was the subject of an adoption order where family violence and tragedy were involved and where the only answer was for that child to be placed, at the authority's expense, in a privately funded boarding school along with the siblings of the family in which the child was to be placed for adoption. That is the kind of situation one envisages, not one where, for example, a social worker made a judgment to seek a place of safety order. I hope that that helps.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that example. I have not disputed that there are difficult situations and that the arrangements ought to be modelled to take account of them. I cannot take the matter further tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert--
	("(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than those functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Clause 19(4) provides that,
	"An overview and scrutiny committee ... may not discharge any functions other than its functions under this section".
	That prompts the question: are the Government absolutely sure that they have Clause 19 completely correct? I assume that the Government are not quite sure about that at the moment because they have tabled an amendment to the clause. My Amendment No. 32 would reverse the position. It states:
	"An overview and scrutiny committee of a local authority may discharge any functions imposed or permitted by the authority other than those functions specified by the Secretary of State in regulations".
	In other words, the Secretary of State can prevent overview and scrutiny committees undertaking certain activities but that is not as tight and inflexible a provision as a clause which states that primary legislation governs exactly what an overview and scrutiny committee can do and that it cannot do anything else at all.
	Let me give an example of an area of council operations which may exercise some authorities under the new arrangements. The client/contractor split, with separate DSO committees, has been introduced in many local authorities. I believe that that issue is not covered in the draft guidelines. I assume that the executive will therefore have responsibility for both client and contractor. It may be that a local authority would want to replicate the current split and would find it convenient for the overview and scrutiny committee to take on the client role. It seems that that would not be allowed if we leave the clause as it is. As people become familiar with what can and cannot be done and with what is convenient under the new arrangements, there will be many more examples of that kind, and it might be useful for an overview and scrutiny committee to deal with them for the benefit of an authority. Primary legislation which is too restrictive could adversely affect the working of the authority. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, overview and scrutiny can comprise a wide range of functions, but it would be wrong to alter the clause to allow overview and scrutiny committees to undertake functions which are clearly executive functions or functions which may not be mandatory for the executive in the legislation but which are, nevertheless, executive functions--for example, licensing and so on. There may be some edges which need to be made clearer in the final guidance.
	The issue that the noble Baroness raised in relation to the client/contractor arrangement was picked up in responses to the consultation and we shall consider the implications of that. But to move to allow the overview and scrutiny committees to take on, in the broadest sense, executive functions would not be appropriate. The committees are there to hold the executive to account for what it has done, for its plans and for how its statutory functions and other functions of the council are being discharged. It would blur the accountability were the overview and scrutiny committees themselves to carry out such functions. I wish to maintain that distinction, albeit that in operational terms "overview and function" could be quite broadly interpreted.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I admire the Minister's confidence that by the end of the legislative process the drafting will be perfect. I do not challenge the executive/scrutiny split he referred to in his reply. I was simply suggesting that prudence might indicate that a mechanism which allowed for some revision after a little experience would be a good thing. But one can go so far in trying to smooth the process and I have perhaps gone further than I should have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 13, line 6, at end insert--
	("( ) Executive arrangements by a local authority must include provision which enables--
	(a) any member of an overview and scrutiny committee of the authority to ensure that any matter which is relevant to the functions of the committee is included in the agenda for, and is discussed at, a meeting of the committee, and
	(b) any member of a sub-committee of such a committee to ensure that any matter which is relevant to the functions of the sub-committee is included in the agenda for, and is discussed at, a meeting of the sub-committee.").

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33 I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. They all deal with the role of the overview and scrutiny committee. I hope that they take us a few steps towards perfection. I am not necessarily claiming that we are absolutely there if we adopt the amendments.
	The House will recall that in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn tabled two amendments in regard to such committees and that we agreed we would take them away and look at them. I believe that we have addressed the bulk of the right reverend Prelate's concerns, although there may be some other areas of concern that he and other noble Lords may wish to raise.
	Amendment No. 33 addresses a fundamental concern highlighted in the debate on those amendments. Overview and scrutiny committees are a key element of any new arrangements. They are there to ensure proper accountability. To ensure that the executive is held to account in a robust way, the committees should ensure that any committee member who has a particular concern about the way in which the executive functions are performed can have that issue discussed. It was for that reason the right reverend Prelate tabled an amendment to allow any committee member to have matters put onto the agenda and discussed by right. I believe that we have met that particular concern.
	The remaining amendments in the group address one of the other concerns of the right reverend Prelate; one more broadly shared by all sides of the House: that is, the need to ensure that the vital role played by church representatives and parent governors in advising local authorities on education areas is protected. The Government greatly share the wish of the House to ensure that that contribution continues in future. That is why we wish to see church representatives and parent governors given a guaranteed role on overview and scrutiny committees dealing with education.
	It was not felt that the amendments we brought forward in Committee adequately met those requirements. We have looked at the proposals brought forward by the right reverend Prelate and have agreed that more detail was needed. That is why Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 38 remove the previous subsections from Clause 19 and Amendment No. 86 replaces them in greater detail in Schedule 1--as it now is--to the Bill.
	I hope our amendment meets those concerns. I believe there is one issue addressed by the right reverend Prelate's earlier amendment which we have not addressed. It is the issue of the Bill requiring that there must be an overview and scrutiny committee dealing solely with education. In fact, what we have done goes somewhat wider than that request. For each executive function, there is a duty for there to be at least one overview and scrutiny committee. Education will be the responsibility of the executive and will therefore have to be covered by at least one committee.
	However, we did not intend to limit those committees to the traditional narrow silos of responsibility along the old departmental lines of housing, education and so on. We should expect councils to take a more imaginative, joined-up approach to the structure of the committees, as they would to the executive. For example, an overview and scrutiny committee might well be set up to look at issues around lifelong learning or social wellbeing and in that context address issues relating to education. The Government would certainly want both church and parent governor representatives to be involved in such discussions. That is why we did not wish to restrict the committee remit unnecessarily.
	Amendment No. 86 therefore guarantees the place, with voting rights, of church and parent governor representatives on overview and scrutiny committees which are examining education as part or all of their remit. I believe that that meets in a slightly different way the concerns expressed in Committee and ensures the important continuing strong presence of church and parent representatives at the centre of the council's policy development mechanisms. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 in the Minister's name answers the concern I raised in Committee about the ability of members of the overview and scrutiny committees to control their own agenda. The important power to place items on the agenda will strengthen the position of all members, in particular, those appointed to represent the Churches, faith communities and parent governors, who might otherwise--we must admit--be a little overwhelmed by the local political parties. Those powers will be necessary for the effective scrutiny of the executive actions. I warmly welcome the Government's response.
	On behalf of the Churches I want to welcome the intention of Amendment No. 86 to set out in a schedule the process for appointing church representatives and representatives of the faith communities where they are providers of schools within the area of a local education authority to any overview and scrutiny committee or sub-committee dealing with educational matters. I welcome also the force of paragraph 5 of the schedule in particular. In recent years, some local education authorities have questioned the right of church representatives to vote in committee on matters affecting the provision of church schools. This has been to prevent them from undertaking the very duty for which they were appointed. While church representatives on education committees are free to express themselves across the range of the educational work of the authority, they were appointed to represent the work of the Church as providers of schools in partnership with the local education authority and we have strongly challenged any attempt to limit their voting on grounds of interest. Paragraph 5 is therefore particularly welcome in that it clarifies the right of church representatives to vote on any education matter.
	I come like Oliver Twist asking for a little more. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to express two remaining areas of concern with the amendment which I hope he will be willing to address as soon as reasonably possible. Although neither is of major importance, each would however ensure the smooth implementation of the Government's intentions in every local education authority. As seems to have become my custom in recent days, in both cases I speak with the support of the chairman of the Catholic Education Service.
	The first area of concern relates to paragraph 4 of the schedule and is a matter of language. The amendment before the House refers to,
	"the persons who appoint foundation governors for Church of England schools in the area",
	and again in sub-paragraph (4)(b) to
	"the persons who appoint foundation governors for Roman Catholic Church schools in the area"
	This somewhat cumbersome form of words is that used in the Education Act 1944 and predates the legal establishment of diocesan boards of education in the Church of England in legislation in 1991, and the legal recognition of the powers in relation to Roman Catholic Church schools of the Roman Catholic diocesan bishop, in legislation in 1993. It would be particularly helpful if we could reflect this change. In practice it has always in the Church of England been the diocesan board of education that has nominated representatives to the local education authority concerned, although in fact a number of other bodies, parishes, deaneries and trustees do appoint foundation governors. A change of the language would avoid potential confusion, intentional or otherwise. Where there is more than one diocese covering the authority in question it would be up to the diocesan boards of education working together to agree among themselves, as they have in the past, which should make the nomination or, if they failed to agree, for the local education authority to appoint from among those nominated.
	The other small outstanding area of concern relates to the Secretary of State's power under paragraph 6 of the amendment to give directions to a relevant English authority as to the appointment of church and other faith representatives to appropriate overview and scrutiny committees and sub-committees. We can envisage potential circumstances of doubt or disagreement as local education authorities develop their flexible plans for crosscutting working and joined-up thinking as to which committees and sub-committees should receive church representatives. Where this doubt or disagreement affects representatives of other denominations and faiths, other than the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, the Secretary of State has power under this paragraph to settle disagreement and give appropriate directions. Such power, it seems to us, the Secretary of State would not have in relation to the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church representatives. We cannot believe that this was the intention of the Government and we would hope that this can be reconsidered and that the Secretary of State could be given the power under this schedule to deal with the representatives of the two major church providers of schools.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate said, he has written to me on both these points. On the second point it was not the intention of the drafting to achieve that outcome in relation to possible areas of dispute, it was merely to differentiate between those who had schools in the area and those who did not. We are looking at that.
	On the first point, I am in consultation with colleagues in the DfEE to ensure that the phraseology we are using reflects fully that of the latest Education Acts, but by so doing does not exclude any other persons appointing. Those two items are in train. I regret that I am actually not able to give the right reverend Prelate the final formulation, but the discussions among officials are still continuing. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves this House we will have resolved those matters.

The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 13, line 9, at end insert--
	("( ) An overview and scrutiny committee shall be chaired by a member elected by the committee.").

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this amendment deals with the position of the chair, or even chairman, of the overview and scrutiny committee. I raised this issue at the previous stage of the Bill when I expressed my concern that in some old-fashioned authorities there might be a temptation on the part of the administration to put into the chair of the overview and scrutiny committee someone who could be relied on to make sure that things went okay for the executive. I would propose that the chair of the committee should be a member of the opposition, but in some authorities there is no opposition; there is a one party state. We cannot legislate for that situation.
	At the previous stage the Minister said that this must be a matter for local decision. My proposal is that it should be for the committee to elect the chair. I recognise that that is by no means a watertight method of avoiding the situation that I described where a member of the administration in all but name is put into place, but it would ensure that, at any rate formally, the chair could not be imposed by the executive and by those who have the responsibility for running the authority, if I may so express it.
	I have been searching for a better way of dealing with what in a handful of authorities could be a real issue. I am not convinced that this is the best way but it is the best I have been able to think of. It would be helpful if the Government could give some assurances as to how the system could not be rigged or abused. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am still not clear why the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wants to place this requirement on the face of the Bill. We leave it to councils to decide how chairs of committees should be selected and we do not see any case for acting differently here. We believe that the precise arrangements should be left to local choice. In our guidance we point out that councils might consider it appropriate to have some or all of these committees chaired by people who are not members of the ruling group. As the noble Baroness said, in a small number of authorities there are no minority members. But they are a small group. We believe it is important for all executive functions to be scrutinised, but it is for councils to decide how that should be done.
	The noble Baroness seeks an assurance that it would not be possible for people to "rig" support. A separation between executive and overview and scrutiny is precisely aimed at preventing that power bloc of dead decision-making being taken outside the processes of the authority. I hope that I have managed to convince the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I cannot say that I am convinced. I do not believe that simply designating someone as having an overview and scrutiny function will change the culture in an authority if that person is naturally sympathetic to those who have been his or her colleagues and who have run the authority in a way of which none of your Lordships would approve. It may change the culture over a long period; however, I do not think that it will address the situation in the early and medium term of the new arrangements being in place. It is a nice hope, but I do not believe that the title will change the culture. I am pretty clear in my own mind that some of those authorities that have brought local government generally into disrepute, or have reduced the reputation of local government, will find one of their number who will take up the position of chair of the overview and scrutiny committee and help his or her colleagues run the committee in a way that is as close as possible to the old arrangements.
	I shall not pursue the matter now. However, I ask the Government to understand that this is a genuine concern on my part. Again, we are seeking to move in the same direction as the Government. We do not oppose what they are doing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 13, line 12, leave out ("subsection (9)") and insert ("any provision made by or under paragraphs 6 to 8 of Schedule 1").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Page 13, line 15, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 13, line 35, at end insert--
	("This provision shall not apply to a committee or sub-committee of an area committee which includes a minority of members who do not carry out executive functions.").

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. The amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill the fact that area committees, when exercising the appropriate overview and scrutiny function, which the Government helpfully said at the previous stage they might do, should not be subject to political balance requirements.
	I fully accept the Government's position that area committees would be able to exercise this function. However, there would still be a requirement for councils to have an overarching scrutiny and overview committee that would ensure consistency throughout the authority. It is important to make it clear on the face of the Bill that area committees are exempted from political balance requirements, particularly in the light of the Minister's comment in his letter; namely, should an area committee happen to be politically balanced because that is how the electorate voted it in, it may discharge the overview and scrutiny function.
	It would be a curious state of affairs if among, say, four area committees, one happened to reflect the exact political balance of the council and that committee could exercise the whole overview and scrutiny function whereas the other three could not. I appreciate that that is most unlikely to happen. However, our amendments would further clarify the situation. It is important to make sure that area committees are rightly able to scrutinise the delivery of local services and are not threatened with being unable to do so as a result of not being politically balanced.
	Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point of concern on this subject regarding executive members. I have become more unclear as we have discussed the Bill as to exactly how an executive member will be able to represent the electorate at all. An executive member will not be able to be a member of the scrutiny and overview committee; and I gather that he or she will not be allowed to be a member of the area committee either. It seems to me that if the member is not able even to be a member of an area committee, it will be difficult for him or her to fulfil any kind of representational role, except in relation to purely regulatory functions. That may be the intention of the Government. However, 10 wards or divisions within a local authority area will effectively lose their representation altogether. In multi-member wards that is perhaps not so serious but in single member wards, which are quite common in my part of the country, the local electorate will begin to think that it is getting a very poor deal if the person it elects is not able to be a member of an area committee, where a good deal of the day-to-day business of the council takes place. In moving this amendment I look forward to the Minister's comments upon that difficulty. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government understand the thought behind these amendments. However, they do not address the matter effectively and we cannot accept them. We believe that every council should have at least one authority-wide overview and scrutiny committee, as we made clear in draft guidance. Such committees should take a broad corporate view across the whole of the executive's decisions in developing and reviewing policy. There is nothing to stop a council from setting up area committees or fora--in some cases it would be very positive--to conduct reviews of policy and executive decisions, with particular emphasis on the impact on their areas. The recommendations could then feed into the wider review being conducted by the council-wide overview and scrutiny committee; or they could be sent directly to the executive or be fed into a full council debate on the particular policy area in question. We have encouraged that multifarious approach in the draft guidance, which makes clear that the Government recognise that in many authorities, area committees have an important role to play in bringing decision-making closer to the people. But in the end we believe that there must be a requirement for at least one authority-wide overview and scrutiny committee to take a corporate view and to avoid unnecessary and damaging turf wars between areas within the authority.
	As far as concerns the role of executive members, we have indicated that nobody should scrutinise his or her own actions. Therefore, executive members cannot be members of overview and scrutiny committees but they can be members of area committees. They are also members of the full council. Therefore, in reply to the noble Baroness, there are at least two points at which they can fulfil the role of representing their constituents even within one-member wards. Area committees are also exempt from political balance, as is made clear in regulations. Those regulations will not change in relation to area committees once the new system is in place.
	As to Amendment No. 37, it appears that the noble Baroness seeks to allow only area committees with a majority of members who carry out executive functions to discharge the overview and scrutiny function. That seems to us to cut across the fundamental principle that no councillor should scrutinise his or her own decisions. That is why members of the executive cannot be members of overview and scrutiny committees and why members of area committees, who discharge functions delegated by the executive, cannot in that context scrutinise their own decisions. The amendment of the noble Baroness would cut across that general principle.
	However, I hope that the noble Baroness is not led to believe that the Government seek to restrict area committees from playing a real and important role in the development of policy and holding the executive to account. That does not mean that they need a specific power formally to discharge the overview and scrutiny functions. Therefore, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary. I hope that I have said enough to indicate that not only are area committees a potentially important part of the new structure but also that executive members are not quite as constrained as the noble Baroness alleges.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which goes a long way towards answering most of my worries. However, the last paragraph of Annex E of his letter to my noble friend Lady Hamwee clearly states:
	"That is why members of the executive will not be allowed to be members of area committees".
	I shall read carefully his reply in Hansard and, if necessary, return to the issue at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 13, line 42, leave out subsection (13).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Access to meetings and information etc.]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 14, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972,").

Baroness Hamwee: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. Amendment No. 42 is the Government's proposed replacement for Clause 20 to which my amendments apply. Amendment No. 44, which stands in my name, is an amendment to government Amendment No. 42. The points in support of my amendments relate to Clause 20 as it stands at present, and are in opposition to the Government's amendment.
	There are two issues in connection with openness and access to information: the openness, transparency and accountability of decisions of the executive, including meetings of the executive and extending to notice of decisions that are to be made and the papers relating to them; and decision making by individuals including elected mayors, and the framework for openness and advance notice.
	Clause 20 does not seem to meet the requirements. It leaves access to information to be dealt with by regulations. They may maintain current levels of access. They may allow new executives to meet in private without prior notice of what will take place. Amendment No. 42 makes the situation worse. It spells out that executives can meet in private. It gives the power of decision on that to the executive, and not to the full council.
	The access to information relates to records of decisions. There is no framework for agendas and papers to be made available in advance.
	There is a provision for publication of information but only on decisions after the event in the case of the "strong mayor" model. There is a requirement that a written record has to be kept. But there is no longer any reference to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. I accept that the current Clause 20 could have allowed the Secretary of State to issue regulations bringing executives within the provisions of the Act. It is now clear that the Government do not intend to do so.
	We on these Benches are extremely disappointed at the route the Government are taking on the issue. Other debates have expressed disappointment about the tentative and unambitious nature of the Freedom of Information Bill. In this Bill, we are going backwards. The clause would mean losing prior information about decisions to be taken. That would affect non-executive members of the council, the media and the public. As we have stated in previous debates on this and other issues, the non-executive members of the council have an important role as a conduit to the public, and in expressing what the public would say were they in a position to do so.
	It is sad, too, that we have the provision in the Bill so close to the new provisions on probity and ethics. Greater secrecy and more ad hoc decision-making will make it harder for the monitoring officer to regulate. It will make it harder for the overview and scrutiny committee to exercise its functions and it will be harder to scrutinise declarations of interest, the award of contracts, and the appointment of other bodies and so forth.
	No doubt the Minister will defend his proposed new clause and will promote it. We shall hear the reasons why in a moment. If I can amend it and oppose it in advance, that is what I am doing. However, the procedure means that what I am doing is moving that the current Clause 20 is made subject to Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this stage, I am speaking primarily to my Amendment No. 42. In Committee, I promised that we would look at whether we needed to set out the key principles underpinning our policy for accountable decision-making. Amendment No. 42 replaces the previous Clause 20.
	As I made clear in Committee, the Government's starting point is to be transparent and accountable The principles are that a council's policy development must be inclusive, allowing the local community to make its input. It ensures that local people know who the decision takers are; what the decision takers are planning to do; what they have done; and why they have done it. Our system is based on those provisions.
	The new structure we are putting forward in its totality will provide both accountability and transparency and, to some extent, set out the provisions for meetings of the executive which need to be seen in the wider context. Those arrangements cover the inclusive process of formulating policy; the identification of individuals who are personally responsible for implementing the budget and its framework; the accurate recording of decisions and their timely publication together with background and factual papers which were made available to the decision makers; and the vital role of the overview and scrutiny committees, meeting in public, to discuss and make recommendations on the development of policy and to hold each executive member responsible for what he or she has done, or the executive as a whole has done.
	This is a whole new structure of accountability and transparency and will open the door for wider engagement in the council process. The executive will need to make clear from the outset what it plans to do; who on the executive takes particular decisions; and how it is intended to involve stakeholders and the community. There will be a continuous dialogue between members of the executive and the relevant overview and scrutiny committee. It is through that process that local people will discover the background as well as the individual decisions.
	Amendment No. 42 puts those arrangements in place. It spells out the key elements of our policy. Coupled with Clause 19 on the role of the overview and scrutiny committees, it sets out the totality of the approach to transparency and accountability. An executive may choose whether or not to meet in public. Whichever decision it takes, it must ensure that proper records are taken and executive decisions, whether made by individuals or the executive as a whole, made publicly available together with all the background reasons and so forth. We intend by regulation to make failure to make or publish such records an offence. That arrangement would ensure that the executive is, in reality, not a small committee. It comprises several people, each with personal responsibility for delivering publicly aspects of the council's agreed policies. An executive will discuss such issues, but it will often be the individual who takes the final decision. Obviously, that will be the case particularly where there is a directly elected mayor.
	If one applied the traditional access to information regime or made the executive in some way subject to that regime, as the noble Baroness's amendment attempts to do, that would fail to recognise the nature of the executive. Amendment No. 44 does not recognise that either. The amendment at least concedes that policy formulation needs to be carried out away from the public gaze, but it still does not recognise that the key role of the executive is to make and report those decisions. If other councillors are allowed simply to attend the meetings of the executive, that fails to recognise the reality of the executive as a group of accountable individuals. That risks sending back decision-making into entirely private, unaccountable and unrecorded meetings.
	I believe that what we have provided more effectively meets the reality. Indeed, Amendment No. 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognises that the key is not whether meetings are in public or in private but whether they are accountable. That is the key point of our whole operation. His amendment seeks to extend the duty to record decisions to those meetings where the executive chooses to meet in public. It has always been our intention that, where the executive chooses to meet in public, it should be subject clearly to Part VA of the 1972 Act. They are public meetings of the full council and council committees and they include meetings of the executive. There is little value in allowing the public to attend a meeting if they are not told in advance the subject of the meeting. To that extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I can confirm that it is our intention that Part VA should apply to all meetings which are open to the public, subject to any necessary modifications of those provisions under the new structure.
	I believe that our amendment puts the whole issue in the framework of enhanced accountability, whereas the noble Baroness's amendment attacks one particular aspect of the new provisions; namely, the issue of public or private meetings. As I said, I believe that the issue is not whether meetings are held in public or private; it concerns accountability. We believe that our provisions and the regulations that could flow from them will ensure accountability. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, for the benefit of noble Lords, because the amendments are grouped, it may be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, were now to speak to his amendment to Amendment No. 42.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, with the concurrence of the House, I am happy to deal with my particular amendment, which seeks to amend government Amendment No. 42. As the Minister has already said, my amendment seeks simply to ensure that where meetings are held in public, proper records are kept.
	I found the wording of Amendment No. 42 to be somewhat different from the words that the Minister used in his description of the Government's intentions. I found the wording of the amendment quite curious. It refers to:
	"Meetings of a ... authority executive, or a committee of such an executive, are to be open to the public or held in private".
	It goes on:
	"Subject to regulations under subsection (9), it is for a local authority executive to decide which of its meetings, and which of the meetings of any committee of the executive, are to be open to the public",
	etcetera. Fair enough. Then it says:
	"A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made at meetings of local authorities executives, or committees of such executives, which are held in private".
	Immediately I wondered what on earth happens to the bulk of the business of the body which is held in public.
	I think the Minister has given me an assurance, for which I am grateful, that the old rules would apply. However, the old rules do not appear to apply in the amendment, as drafted. However it may be that they do because I see in Section 10 a mention of the Local Government Act 1972.
	I shall need to study this and take advice on what the Minister has said. If his assurance is correct and the position is covered, he will hear no more from me about the amendment. I shall be happy not to move it at this stage. However, we need to consider this carefully to ensure that the position is properly covered.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I rise briefly to express my disappointment that after all the discussions through the Nolan Committee and the Neill Committee, we now have on the face of the Bill the fact that the executive can meet in private. I accept the comments made by the Minister in Committee that if that were not the case such business would be conducted at group meetings, and so forth. However, surely it would be better at least to require the executive to meet in public, for a written record to be kept of group meetings and for whips to be declared.
	This is not a step forward in openness, transparency and accountability, however often the Minister says it is; it is not. The effect will be that when a local authority has consulted the public, conducted its MORI polls and public opinion panels, the executive will be empowered to make policy decisions. However, the public will not know which decisions are being made. They will not be able to express any view to individuals of that executive before such decisions are made. Some of the people most disempowered by this provision are the minority groups which will probably not be picked up by MORI polls, public opinion panels and focus groups.
	Earlier this evening we discussed equality of opportunity. Those with loud voices and word processors will not be too disadvantaged by this process. However, individuals with great interest in particular issues, or minority groups, will simply not know that quite often crucial decisions are being taken about which they can voice no opinion until after the event. They will be considerably disempowered.
	Whichever way I see the amendment tabled by the Government I see it as a piece of disempowering legislation. I remain fundamentally disappointed that the Government have not gone the whole way and ensured that local authority meetings, whether executive, scrutiny committees, full council or whatever, should be held in public. As we move towards a new era of local government, I should have thought that would be the least we could expect.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. I should make clear that in speaking to my amendment to that tabled by the Government, I stated that I opposed the government amendment as it stood. My amendment is a bit of "tweaking". Frankly, I would rather not see this clause in the form in which it is proposed.
	This is a subject to which we must return. The Government are badly letting down local communities and local government. The reputation of local government will not be enhanced by allowing private decision making, which has done so much in the past to bring down the reputation of local government in the eyes of the public.
	I return to Amendment No. 39 and with considerable reluctance--I doubt that there are enough people present to vote on the matter--I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Leave out Clause 20 and insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:ACCESS TO INFORMATION ETC
	(" .--(1) Meetings of a local authority executive, or a committee of such an executive, are to be open to the public or held in private.
	(2) Subject to regulations under subsection (9), it is for a local authority executive to decide which of its meetings, and which of the meetings of any committee of the executive, are to be open to the public and which of those meetings are to be held in private.
	(3) A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made at meetings of local authorities executives, or committees of such executives, which are held in private.
	(4) A written record must be kept of prescribed decisions made by individual members of local authority executives.
	(5) Written records under subsection (3) or (4) must include reasons for the decisions to which they relate.
	(6) Written records under subsections (3) and (4), together with such reports, background papers or other documents as may be prescribed, must be made available to members of the public in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
	(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may make provision for or in connection with preventing the whole or part of any record or document containing prescribed information from being made available to members of the public.
	(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision--
	(a) with respect to the access of the public to meetings of joint committees, or sub-committees of such committees, at which decisions are made in connection with the discharge of functions which are the responsibility of executives (including provision enabling such meetings to be held in private),
	(b) for or in connection with requiring written records to be kept of decisions made at meetings which by virtue of paragraph (a) are held in private,
	(c) for or in connection with requiring written records falling within paragraph (b) to include reasons,
	(d) for or in connection with requiring any such written records to be made available to members of the public,
	(e) for or in connection with requiring documents connected with decisions to which any such written records relate to be made available to members of the public.
	(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision--
	(a) as to the circumstances in which the whole or part of the proceedings at meetings mentioned in subsection (2) are to be held in private,
	(b) with respect to the information which is to be included in written records kept by virtue of this section,
	(c) with respect to the reasons which are to be included in any such written records,
	(d) with respect to the persons who are to produce, keep or make available any such written records,
	(e) for or in connection with requiring any such written records to be made available to members of local authorities or to overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees,
	(f) for or in connection with requiring documents connected with decisions to which any such written records relate to be made available to members of local authorities or to overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees,
	(g) for or in connection with requiring information to be made available by electronic means,
	(h) for or in connection with conferring rights on members of the public, members of local authorities or overview and scrutiny committees or sub-committees in relation to records or documents,
	(i) for or in connection with the creation of offences in respect of any rights or requirements conferred or imposed by virtue of this section.
	(10) In this section--
	"joint committee" means a joint committee falling within section 101(5)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972,
	"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
	[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, as amendments to Amendment No. 42, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 42 agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at eleven o'clock.